Critical analysis of utopia series8/17/2023 ![]() It falls into two clearly different parts presented from two clearly different narrative perspectives: that of Raphael Hythloday, radical and utopian, and that of the More-figure in the text, who is sober and full of scepticism. Utopia is a brief text with a complex structure. What is needed, instead, is a systematic analysis of the causes that account for the conflicting interpretations and of the argumentative structures used in their defence.įor various reasons, the critical debate about Thomas More's Utopia is particularly suitable for such an analysis. ![]() 1 This is small wonder, since the critical strategies traditionally used in research reports and prefaces to anthologies - mere descriptions of conflicting interpretations and a cautious attempt at mediation between extreme positions - cannot provide an adequate model for the task. Though these important questions have often been discussed in modern literary theory, they have only rarely been asked with respect to concrete critical debates on a particular literary text. (2) If in the light of such explanations the concept of interpretative pluralism is viewed as legitimate at all, how exactly can it be defined? Does the term 'pluralism' mean that one should search for an umbrella concept covering all the conflicting interpretations and integrate them into a larger whole, or does it mean adopting a sceptical stance that proceeds on the assumption that all is relative and there is no truth in any of the conflicting interpretative hypotheses? Is - in view of this alternative - a genuine pluralism possible at all or must any attempt to regard conflicting interpretations as equally valid necessarily end up in logical non-sequiturs? (1) What are the actual causes of the puzzling multiplicity in the field of interpretation? Does the pluralism of conflicting interpretations result mainly from the pluralism of approaches and methods, which is so prominent in modern criticism? Or is it largely independent of method and must it rather be explained against the background of such broader notions as the ambiguous nature of language or the even more general principles and possibilities of gestalt perception? Two sets of crucial questions are being ignored when the concept of interpretative pluralism is used without any further reflection: From the viewpoint of literary theory, however, the concept is far more problematic than such commonplace references suggest. ![]() Most literary scholars believe in the concept of interpretative pluralism, i.e., the idea that for every important work of art there is a multiplicity of different and yet equally valid interpretations, and they refer to it as if it were a generally accepted notion: " it is a mark of a 'great book' that it has the largest number of possible interpretations" (Heilman, 1963: 3) "ours is an age of plurality" "criticism should be incorrigibly plural" (Kermode, 1969: 14 and 20). ![]() Peter Wenzel (Aachen) 'Utopian Pluralism': A Systematic Approach to the Analysis of Pluralism in the Debate about Thomas More's Utopia Pluralism in the Debate about Thomas More's Utopia ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |