Shaival Thakkar, M.

phil English Studies,

Christ University, Bangalore
Roll no: 1234106
The main argument in The Philosophy of Modern Literary Theory by Peter. V. Zima

The author of The Philosophy of Modern Literary Theory Peter.V. Zima says in the preface
of his book:
The main argument underlying this book...can be summed up in a few words: modern
theories of literature can only be understood adequately if they are considered within the
philosophical and aesthetic context in which they originated and evolved. As long as they are
isolated from this context and viewed in purely literary terms, as co-existing and competing
approaches to literature, their specific character and their fundamental aims are obscured. (V
iii) Moreover, in the first chapter he clarifies that the main question which will be asked
throughout this book is to what extent literary texts (works of art in general) univocally
express conceptual thought or meaning. (1)
Zima identifies Kant and Hegels theories of art being the most influential and underlying
aesthetic theories behind many modern literary theories. Let us take a detailed look at these
two schools of thought:

Kants theory of art

Immanuel Kants (1724-1804) theory of art was that beauty is non-conceptual and therefore,
it is also autonomous.(3) He believed art to be autonomous from economic, political,
affective or didactic interests.(4)
Hegels theory of art
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegels (1770-1831) theory of art was that an artist articulates a
particular historical consciousness: the consciousness of his time. (6)

There have been many critical debates over the years about the Kantian and Hegelian theories
of art. Louis Hjelmslev was a linguist and semiotician who coined the terms the expression
plane and the content plane. (2) These critical debates can also be considered as debates
between the expression plane and the content plane.

Theories influenced by Kantian thought

Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling was a Kantian as he believed that art represents that which
cannot be conceptualized. It goes beyond conceptualization. Friedrich Schlegel also gave
importance to the expression plane and considered art as the core of humanity. New Critics
and Formalists like Benedetto Croce too were concerned with the expression plane and the
How of art. Czech Structuralists like Otakar Zich and Jan Mukarovsky too were concerned
with the How of art. Zich believed that art stimulates thought without being identifiable with
particular, clearly definable concepts. Moreover, Mukarovsky contributed to Kantian thought
by saying that the meaning of a polysemic work cannot be fixed because it permanently
changes in a never ending process of interpretation and reinterpretation. Reader response
theory too believed that meaning is subject to change.
Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin analyse the mimetic, non-conceptual aspects of
language and show to what extent the latter resists integration into theoretical discourse.
Modern aesthetics of Benjamin and Mikhail M. Bakhtin emphasise on disharmony,
ambivalence, and plurality. In chapter seven, Zima explains that Derrida, Nietzsche, and the
German Romantics (especially Friedrich Schlegel) are related to one another by their
common refusal of the rationalist and Hegelian idea that language is primarily an instrument
of knowledge and means of communication. Meaning, argues Derrida, cannot ever be
present, because it is always being differed (post-poned) in a movement which he calls
diffrance. Similarly, Barthes proclaims the freedom of the signifier, the phonetic unit not
tainted by meaning.
Derridas deconstruction was influenced by Nietzsches critique of metaphysics, Heideggers
continuation of this critique and by German Romantic Philosophy. Paul de Man was a
deconstructionist who worked on allegory and found it to be expressing disharmony,
decomposition and fragmentation. De Man introduced aporia or unreadability of a text
while Miller J. Hillis introduced repetition. G. H. Hartmans work is based on three
complementary notions: negativity, delay and indeterminacy and he also introduces the term
the dance of meaning. Jean Francois Lyotard contributes to postmodernism by introducing
the theory of disagreement or the differend, pluralisation of society, the ideas of injustice and
paralogy and is against commercialised mass culture. On the other hand, Gianni Vattimo
speaks of a liberation of differences, introduces the idea of heterotopy and welcomes the
emergence of a commercialised mass culture which tends to combine high-brow and popular
forms of art.

Theories influenced by Hegelian thought

According to Zima, Marxists were defenders of Hegelian position as they believed works of
art are conceptual icons which univocally express political points of view, ideologies or
philosophical doctrines. Moreover, Hegel was also an important influence on Czech
Structuralists. For example, Jan Mukarovsky believed in the historical conception of art and
that individual works of art can have an impact on societys system of values and norms.

Critical Theory too uses some Marxist concepts but it is different from Marxism. According
to Gyorgy Lukacs, good literature reveals a particular socio-historical situation. Lucien
Goldman believes that the meaning of an element depends on the coherent structure of the
work as a whole. Greimas has a conceptual approach. He is convinced that political,
philosophical, commercial, and literary texts are accessible to semiotic analysis, which
reveals their semantic and narrative foundations. Zima believed that Derrida was also a
Young Hegelian.

Attempting to create a dialogue between the Kantian and Hegelian thoughts

Czech Structuralists like Jan Mukarovsky were influenced by both Kant and Hegel. Umberto
Eco scans the limits of conceptualization but insists on the possibility of theoretical analysis.
For H. G. Gadamer truth is both an aesthetic and a historical concept. Gadamers opinion on
art is a synthesis of Kant and Hegel. He says that art can only be understood adequately as a
permanent quest for truth. Moreoever, he says that this truth cannot be conceptually defined;
it is polysemic and an inexhaustible source of interpretation. Zima defines theory and
ideology very distinctly for the reader, as theory is often in the danger of becoming ideology.
Zima wants the reader to avoid ideology and read theory for what it is and understand and
appreciate its value.
Conclusion
The main argument that Zima presents in The Philosophy of Modern Literary Theory is that
each modern theory has a foundation in Kantian or Hegelian thoughts. He provides the
philosophical and aesthetic contexts from which each of these theories emerged. Due to their
commercial value, some of these theories are pitted against each other. However, Zima
argues that each literary theory has its own distinct value and should not be given premium
over other theories due to market fashions or just because of their temporal succession to
previous theories. Zima believes that the truth if it exists should be looked for in the
nexus between that which is definable and that which is not.

Works Cited
Zima, Peter V. The Philosophy of Modern Literary Theory. New Brunswick NJ: The Athlone
Press P, 1999. Print.