Formalism

Formalism Definition

Formalism, also called New Criticism or textual criticism, is a literary method that emerged in the 1930s. It focuses on the importance of the text itself rather than the author’s intent or the reader’s response. Formalist criticism focuses on the text’s structure, style, and language, ignoring any biographical or historical context. They argue that the text’s form is more important than its content and that its meaning is determined by the text itself. They believe that the reader should approach the text without preconceived notions or expectations. Formalists do not consider the text an expression of social, religious, or political ideas; neither do they consider the text to be advocating some cause or belief. Therefore, formalism makes its followers vigilant and discerning readers.

Background of Formalism

The New Criticism emerged as a reaction against scholars and teachers who, in the early twentieth century, focused on the biographical and historical context of a literary work. Instead of focusing on a poem, critics treated it as a sociological or historical product. Sometimes, critics and scholars directly imposed their own impressions on the text while evaluating it. This led to the adoption of a new method that could solely put emphasis on the text. Resultantly, The New Criticism rejected this approach and instead focused on the text itself, reading it as an autonomous work of art. It argued that the meaning of a poem was determined primarily by its form, structure, and style. In New Criticism, a work is understood and valued for its own intrinsic value, not for its metaliterary matters. The movement began informally in the 1920s at Vanderbilt University in discussions among John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren, Allen Tate, Cleanth Brooks, as well as others interested in discussing literature. They published a literary magazine called ‘The Fugitive’ for three years. Inspired by T. S. Eliot, I. A. Richards, and William Empson, they started to establish their own method of dealing with literary text. Their thinking was influenced by Eliot’s theory that art was not a mere expression of social, religious, or political ideas. They were also influenced by Eliot’s concept of objective correlative, which is the art of expressing emotions in a piece of literature. Their practice of analyzing poems carefully was also inspired by Richards. In time, formalism gained popularity after getting acceptance by such renowned literary journals as the ‘Kenyon Review’ and ‘Sewanee Review’. Through the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, formalism was widely accepted and became the dominant method of study in American and, to some extent, English literary studies. The success of formalist criticism was due to its focus on close textual analysis and its emphasis on the importance of language. Formalism also provided a strong basis for literary criticism, allowing for the careful exploration of literary techniques and devices.

New Criticism

The term New Criticism was coined by the American critic John Crowe Ransom in 1941. New criticism, unlike Russian Formalism, flourished in America. The basic belief of New Criticism was that meaning resides not in the intention of the author nor in the experience of the reader, but in the literary text itself and in the relationship of internal elements of a poem.

Russian Formalism

The formalist movement that took place in the United States and the Russian formalists are sometimes thought to be related, or at least closely related, due to their similar names. But, in reality, there is little connection between the two. Although there are some similarities between the principles of the New Critics and those of the Russians, the New criticism flourished in the United States, and the latter gained popularity in Moscow and St. Petersburg in the 1920s. Because the Russian formalists were influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure, their work is more closely related to that of structuralists. Saussure’s influence is evident in the argument of the Russian formalists that literature is a systematic set of linguistic and structural elements. They viewed literature as a self-contained system that could be studied for its content and form. They rejected the view that literature expresses an author’s biographical content and also proposed that literature should be studied in a scientific manner. Their focus was on the strategies and devices that an author used rather than on history. Therefore, form was more important to them than content.

Additionally, the Russian formalists believed that there was a widespread difference between ordinary language and literary language. One is familiar or expected, and the other is unexpected or unfamiliar. According to them, a writer should make a piece of literature unexpected and unfamiliar. It is done by using language that is unexpected and unfamiliar to the reader. This forces the reader to think more deeply about the text and interpret it differently. In this sense, Victor Shklovsky coined the term defamiliarization, which refers to a work that makes the reader alert and alive; it calls up their attention to the text and forces them to look again and catch the unexpected.

Mikhail Bakhtin

Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975), a Russian literary critic of the twentieth century, was another major contributor to the studies of Russian Formalism. However, it is impossible to place him into a single category of criticism due to the wide range of areas of study he covered, including philosophy, ethics, cultural criticism, literary history, etc. It is sometimes claimed that he is a Russian formalist, but his views clearly differ from theirs. Other times, he was called a Marxist critic since he was writing in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, but these doctrines never dominated his writing. Regardless of this difficulty, the impact of his thinking on many fields of study makes it impossible to overlook him.

His major works include ‘Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics’, ‘Rabelais’, ‘His World’ and ‘The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. Bakhtin’. One famous and widely appreciated essay “Discourse in the Novel,” is part of his collection, The Dialogic Imagination. In these writings, he introduces the main ideas and concepts of his literary and cultural philosophy. Bakhtin’s major concepts include polyphony, heteroglossia, dialogism, unfinalizability, and carnival.

Dialogism

Mikhail Bakhtin’s literary theory is based on the concept of dialogism. According to him, all forms of written or spoken language involve dialogues, one speaker and at least one listener, and the relationship between them. He argues that dialogue is the essence of language and that the dialogue between writer and reader is the most fundamental form of communication. He also suggests that dialogue is a form of storytelling, as it allows two or more characters to interact with each other and reveal their inner thoughts. As far as he is concerned, language is not fixed and one-sided. Instead, language is a living thing that is constantly changing and evolving with the people who use it.

Unfinalizibility

Unfinalizability refers to the condition in which people cannot be completely known. It suggests that we always remain in a process of becoming and that our understanding of each other is always incomplete. This encourages us to be open to new ideas and perspectives and to continue to expand our own understanding of the world.

Heteroglossia

Heteroglossia refers to the use and interaction of various forms of language and social speech that people use in their daily lives. Heteroglossia looks at how the various forms of speech interact with each other to create meaning and convey messages. It also looks at the manner in which people adopt different ways of speaking, their differing vocabulary, accents, expressions, and rhetorical strategies.
Bakhtin believed that language is governed by two forces. While using physics terms, he calls them centripetal and centrifugal forces. Centripetal force pushes things towards the center, while centrifugal force pushes things away from a central point. Its opposite form, or monologic language, is centripetal because it puts everything into a single statement and is static. According to Bakhtin, heteroglossic language is centrifugal due to its dynamic nature. Heteroglossic language is constantly changing and adapting to its environment. It reflects the variety of voices and perspectives within a society, and it is a reflection of the ever-changing nature of language and society.

Polyphony

Polyphony refers to a novel in which the dialogue goes on forever without reaching a conclusion. The novel is structured in a way that does not convey the author’s view. Unlike traditional novels, these novels do not have a central voice but instead have multiple unfinalizable characters that express their thoughts in their own distinctive ways. The novels of Dostoyevsky demonstrate this type of structure in which a number of voices make opposite and inconsistent statements that never meet a conclusion. In his novels, not only the characters but also the author and the reader work to create the novel’s meanings.

Carnival

Carnival is another key concept in Bakhtin’s theory that is published in his famous critiques ‘Rabelais’ and ‘His World’. The concept is based on the ancient tradition of Saturnalia, a festival in which official cultural and social roles are reversed. For a short period of time, the underpowered became the powerful, the slave became the master, and the master became the slave. According to Bakhtin, the novel has a similar social impact.
Carnival novels reverse the traditional systems of authority and order by removing social hierarchies and the distinctions between young and old, rich and poor, and public and private. This reversal of roles helps to achieve joy and understand the world in a better way.