Chicago school (literary criticism)
|
|
The Chicago school of literary criticism, also known as Neo-Aristotelianism, was developed in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s at the University of Chicago. It is sometimes considered a type of formalism, but it is more often described as an opposing school of thought to new criticism. Whereas the "new critics" were heavily invested in form, and in what Aristotle calls diction, the Chicago school took a more holistic approach to literary analysis. They followed Aristotle's hierarchical list of the narrative elements. According to Aristotle and the Chicago school, the most important aspect of a work was plot, followed by character, thought, and then diction. Aristotle's last two aspects - melody and spectacle - are less important to the Chicago school.
The Chicago school attempted to expand on Aristotle's notion of catharsis, employing it to talk generally about the effect that dramatic works produce, and the moral implications of these effects. Their readings were often broadly humanist. As a result, the Chicago school was criticized for depending too heavily on broad generalizations about the nature of humanity for its readings and ignoring the diversity of culture that exists in practice. Later Chicago critics attempted to embrace pluralism instead of humanism, but they were still criticized as taking an essentially Eurocentric position.
Major Chicago school critics included R.S. Crane and Elder Olson. More recently, Wayne Booth has carried on the tradition of the Chicago school, as has James Phelan. Major works include Olson's Tragedy and the Theory of Drama, the collection Critics and Criticism edited by Crane, and Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction.