| Literary criticism is in the grip of two theories, each providing its own answer to the query whether literary criticism can improve. One theory is that all literary criticism is equally good and on this view literary criticism improves by proliferating "approaches to the text." The other theory frequently accompanies politically motivated literary criticism. According to it, the only literary criticism that merits consideration is that which fits the criteria for proper commitment to the cause, whatever these criteria and this cause may be. Within these criteria, literary criticism improves by proliferating "approaches to the text" that can be used as weapons in its arsenal. The first view is pluralist in the extreme and rules out nothing, the second view is at some point dogmatic, and within this dogmatism, allows a mitigated pluralism. The feminist debate over pluralism of the mid 1980's provides an example of proponents of each view arguing how much to concede to dogma and how to remain inclusive.;Against these two views a third is presented. By holding our theories only tentatively and exposing them to a plurality of criticisms, we not only avoid dogmatism, but allow for our literary criticism to improve by uncovering its mistakes. Individual theories can improve by being constructed in such a way that they are open to criticism and literary critics can improve their positions by becoming self-critical. This application of Popper's critical rationalism to literary criticism solves the problem of pluralism that is at the center of the feminist debate. (Abstract shortened by UMI.). |
