In Rosenblatt’s “The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response,” she outlines the reader-response theory with a few more nuances than we’ve covered thus far in our coursework. In previous discussions of ‘reader-response theory’ in class, it has primarily been bemoaned as the common denominator of literary theories in the last few decades of education.
My impression, at least, of some of these other perspectives on reader response has been that they suggest supplanting of this theory with a set of theories broadly termed ‘critical literacy,’ which include lenses like gender, class, race and related social topics through which to view a text. While these are amazing theories, I think I was beginning to think that reader-response theory was irrelevant at best, or perhaps oppressive at worse. I was interested, then, to read Rosenblatt’s conception of her reader-response theory, because it felt different than what my impression of reader-response theory has been up to this point. For Rosenblatt, reader-response is much more than simply polling readers for their reaction to a text. Instead, her theory seemed to me to deal more complexly with the process of transformation that a text undergoes when it is read. She states that, “reading is a transaction, a two-way process,” and that the “the most important choice of all must be made early in the reading event -- the overarching choice of what I term the reader’s stance, his “mental set,” so to speak” (268). The two stances she focuses on are the “efferent,” or information-seeking stance, and the “aesthetic” stance, which is more broadly related to being present as a reader during the reading and being open to the variety of internal connections, responses, and feelings that come up as reading occurs. In exploring these two approaches to reading and their related outcomes, I found myself rethinking a bit of my opinion on reader-response theory. While I certainly believe critical literacy lenses are essential in helping students critique the worldview present in texts, I also really appreciated how Rosenblatt’s theory emphasizes the importance of allowing students to read from an “aesthetic stance.” In particular, she notes that modern, standardized-testing saturated schools are more and more pushing students to read from an “efferent stance” -- meaning they approach the text only looking for information, often attempting to discern which pieces of information they will be required to know for answering comprehension questions on exams. This is an experience that definitely relates to my own experiences in school. Growing up, I devoured books on my own time. I was an introvert and absolutely loved to read for pleasure -- I probably would have chosen that over interacting with the real world any day! I loved the feeling of being immersed in a novel’s imagined world and getting to know each world’s unique characters. It was actually the introduction of dreaded “comprehension questions” and assignments that required me to prioritize the information in a text in a school setting that caused me to deviate from my love of the experience of reading. I was fortunate enough to have built a love of reading early enough in life that it survived the constant preference of the “efferent” approach to reading in school, but I wonder how many kids have a similar experience and simply give up on reading altogether? Indeed, Rosenblatt notes how schools have often, in their prioritization of “efferent” (information-seeking) reading, neglected teaching students how to read texts with a more “aesthetic” sense of present-ness and engagement with the emotional, personal experience of reading a text. When reading with an aesthetic stance the reader is allowed to pay attention “not simply [to] the abstract concepts that the words point to, but also what those objects or references stir up of personal feelings, ideas, and attitudes” (269). This shift to valuing the “aesthetic stance” is one I am passionate about making in a future English classroom. I love how it emphasizes the way stories can be seen, felt, experienced bodily and emotionally, and how each reader will draw unique, personal connections in the text, even while reading the same one. In our fast-paced, task-driven culture this shift into “present-ness” both emotionally and physically can have enormous benefits for students. Not only does it reinforce healthy personal practices like mindfulness and self-awareness, it inherently opposes the idea that literature is only useful for the information it presents. To me, it feels like a return to the art of literature -- that written works can be of value and important simply for the aesthetic, experiential possibilities that they open up for students. In sum, reader-response is more nuanced (and quite possibly more important!) than I realized. And, while it should not replace or supersede critical literacy theories, I can see reader-response being a helpful tool to help students connect with and experience texts personally, in addition to critiquing them through the use of critical literacy theories. Resource Link: Mindful Schools - 6 Ideas for Creating Mindfulness in the Classroom -- this organization works to help implement mindfulness for teachers, classrooms and schools. The practices are meant to help educators and students build mind-body connection awareness and learn how to regulate, make choices about what they need, and be more present in the school environment. This article gives some great tips for helping students be mindful in the classroom -- these may be helpful when teaching students to read with an “aesthetic” awareness of how they are personally experiencing a text. References: Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response. Theory Into Practice, 21(4), 268–277.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AboutM.Ed English Ed. candidate at the University of Minnesota. ArchivesCategories |