Sola Osofisan
08-07-2009, 04:53 AM
Literary criticism, scholarship and national development (1)
by Simon Obikpeko Umukoro
Being 18th lecture in the series of inaugural lectures of the Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria delivered by Simon Obikpeko Umukoro, professor of English and Literary Studies on Thursday, June 11, 2009.
INTRODUCTION
THIS inaugural is the first in English and Literary Studies here at the Delta State University, Abraka. It, therefore, marks an important stage in the development of our discipline here, ushering it into the league of those in the Faculty of Arts and the entire university in which this academic ritual has been performed. It also serves to offer an insight into our pre-occupation in the discipline and thus help to correct the prejudice and false impression, which the public has on it.
Academics in English and Literary Studies are sometime called "grammar people." This name is less than a compliment. It is a euphemism for alleging that these academics care about their use of English at the expense of substance. This impression which some people have about academics in English and Literary Studies is not correct. In this discipline, we are concerned about substances as much as grammar. Today's inaugural will demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a lot more to English and Literary Studies than grammar.
The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines inaugural as follows (1) "relating to or describing a ceremony that officially marks the beginning of something; (2) a speech, lecture, etc given by someone on taking office or at their inaugurating ceremony."
In the university system, for example, it is required of a newly-appointed professor to deliver an inaugural lecture in order "to demonstrate that he is not an intellectual heretic and to justify his professorship by ample display of the range and depth of his learning" (Ogude, 2000:1). He also uses the opportunity and occasion of the inaugural either "to propound a new theory in his discipline or to engage his society in a worthwhile debate in an area of great importance to that society" (Ogude, 2000;1). And this is done "without being questioned or contradicted in anyway" (Omamor, 2003:2). The inaugural, therefore, provides one rare opportunity for the newly-appointed professor to thrill his audience with the display of what the late Kwame Nkrumah delightfully described as "academic arrogance and intellectual pomposity" (quoted in Ogude, 2000:1).
It may be noted, however, that in many Nigerian universities, including our own Delta State University, the inaugural has got little or nothing to do with the newness of the professor. Actually, I am not new. I attained my professorship 11 years ago. What is important, however, is that it is now my turn to deliver this rare, important lecture at the end of which I will not entertain questions or be contradicted in any way.
One effect of the passage of these 11 years is that it has enabled me to tone down the twin element of arrogance and pomposity, and this may be pardoned by my audience because humility is also the essence of academics. I shall therefore not endeavour to mystify the audience with literary jargons and critical terminologies. I also do not intend to propound a new theory in literary studies. Instead, still in the best tradition of inaugurals, I propose to engage my Nigerian society in an important debate on the destiny of our country, particularly, on how to solve the acute problem of its under-development and make it a modern country where things work. The subject is pursued from the perspective of my discipline and is titled 'Literary criticism, scholarship and national development."
DEFINITION AND CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
Three concepts are crucial to the discussion; it is therefore necessary to define and clarify them. First is literary criticism, which may be approached through the definition of literature. This is because something is more readily defined by what it is not, perhaps what engenders it or what it deals with, but is not it (Andrew Horn, 1981). Literature and literary criticism manifest a similar relationship. One is the basis of the other which in turn, it deals with; "but the two are distinct activities" (Wellek and Warren, 70: P. 15).
Most people in this audience are probably familiar with literature. They must have read one or two books of literature; and have heard of writers such as Sophocles, William Shakespeare, Chinua Achebe and Wole Soyinka. These and a host of other writers worldwide, from the classical period to contemporary times, produce a body of works, which is called literature. What then is Literature?
One way is to define it as a literary art, a creative activity which uses languages as its medium of expression. As Wellek and Warren (1970) explain, "language is the material of literature as stone or bronze is of sculpture, paints of pictures, or sounds of music" (p. 22). Literature can also be clearly defined through the element of fictionality. Every work of Literature (be it a poem, play or novel) presents a human experience. That experience, even in autobiographies such as Camara Laye's The African Child (1954) and Ezekiel Mphalele's Down Second Avenue (1965), is not literally true. It is created or invented out of the writer's imagination. Again, as Wellek and Warren put it, in a work of literature, "the reference is to a world of fiction, of imagination" (p. 25).
However, the writer does not create out of nothing, a feat which is attributable to God only. The writer creates through a mimesis, that is, by representing human beings and events in our physical world of existence. Thus, in spite of or because of this representation, the ultimate nature of literature is its creativity or inventiveness.
What links all this to the definition of our operational concepts is that literature is the subject matter of literary criticism. The latter deals with, or is about the former as Physics and Biology are about natural forces and organisms respectively.
Literary criticism is a species of learning which is concerned with the interpretation of a work(s) of literature for a reading public. This consists of two intellectual activities: explication or analysis and evaluation or judgment. There are, of course, attempts to create tension between the two. For example, it is argued in formalist criticism that a literary work of art is the sum total of all the stylistic devices used therein; and the business of criticism is not to evaluate the work, but purely to analyse and describe stylistic devices (Scott, pp.179-244 and Wellek and Warren, pp. 139-211). But as George Watson (1963) rightly observes, "criticism that counts does not permit us to describe the work without judging it... All describe" (pp. 29-31). In other words, analysis land judgment are two complementary activities of the critical endeavour. However, in order of priorities, analysis precedes judgment, essentially "because a work of literature cannot be judged correctly until it has been (analysed and) understood correctly" (Bateson, 1972:8).
Literary analysis is basically descriptive. It is the act of resolving or breaking up a work of literature into its constituent parts and elements. It tries to describe as succinctly as possible all the elements in a work to the minutest detail, including the determination of the meaning of every world in it. This is to facilitate a full and accurate comprehensive of the multiplicity of form and meaning in a work of literature.
Accompanying this is judgment which is concerned with the discrimination of values and the capacity to deliver an opinion about the rights and wrongs, the good and bad aspects of a literary work of art. This is what every critic must do and no critic should refuse to do. For, as Bateson teaches, "if you cannot tell good literature from bad... your learning is likely to be wasted" (p. 25). This critical function also involves evaluating a work of literature to show whether or not it is relevant to the positive development of society and the individual.
The critic's vocation has been a target of unwarranted charges. One of these is that it is the people who cannot create works of literature who become critics or as George Steniner asks, "who would be a critic if he could be a writer" (1979: 21). This argument is not worthy of response here as it has been consigned to the status of "popular slander" (Krieger, 1984: 17). The critic has also been accused of being "a niggling fault-finder" (reported in Bateson, P.5). This accusation is rather severe and one-sided. The critic does not set out to find faults with a work of literature. He sets out to seek the truth and in the search, he is not blind to the merits of the work. He extols them as much as he exposes the faults. There is another unwarranted charge against the critic's profession even by those who ought to know better. Take, for example, the following argument by Abiola Irle, himself a formidable critic. According to him: There are times when one feels that there is something incongruous about literary criticism as a profession. It must seem slightly odd at the best of times, that an individual should devote an entire adult life to reading and producing commentaries upon what others have written. The opinion one sometimes encounters, that literary criticism is a parasitic activity seems at such times to have a reasonable basis (1988: 93).
The central thesis of this argument is that literary criticisms is parasitic on literature simply because literature is the subject matter of literary criticism. This argument is shaky and is difficult to sustain. As indicated earlier, literary criticism is an intermediary activity. It interprets works of literature for a reading public, making the works more meaningful to the readers. A case of mediation such as this cannot be said to be parasitic. Dan Izevbaye (1988: 106-107), makes the point clearer by offering a parallel activity in order social institutions where professional mediation is not considered a parasitic activity.
For example, in seeking a solution to the economic riddle why the farmer or the manufacturer does not directly market his goods, a concession is made to the Standards Organisation and the distributors who are intermediaries, not parasites. The midwifery profession is predicated on the existence of childbearing women; but no one argues that a midwife is a parasite. Legal advocates plead the cause of litigants; but advocates are not parasitic on litigants. In a similar manner, criticism deals with literature not as a parasite but as a mediator, a role which resounds with symbiotic significance.
This is even so because criticism speaks for literature which is limited in its capacity to speak for itself. Northrop Frye is right when he says that "criticism can talk, and all the arts are dumb. In painting, sculpture or music, it is easy enough to see that the art shows forth, but cannot say anything. And poems are as silent as statues" (1973: 4).
But poems "talk" through criticism and their meaning is articulated by it. In fact, the meaning which a work of literature conveys is the one which is affirmed for it by criticism. There is another sense in which literature is dependent on criticism. A work that is not criticised very easily slips into oblivion; and whatever popularity such writers as Shakespeare and Soyinka have today is equally the result or the critical opinion that has settled on them. Surely, literary criticism is also essential for the survival of literary art.
Another concept that needs to be clarified is scholarship; and in this case, we shall begin by turning to the dictionary. The Chambers 20 Century Dictionary defines "scholarship as learning", that is having the learning or a scholar. The same dictionary defines a scholar as "one whose learning is extensive and exact or whose approach to learning is scrupulous and critical." If all the bits are put together, two related shades of meaning of scholarship emerge (i) the learning that is extensive and exact in scope and quality; (ii) the learning that is derived through a scrupulous and critical approach.
In regard to the second shade of leaning, the scientific method of experimentation is a notable example of the scholarly approach to learning. But it is not the only scholarly approach available to mankind. For example, literary criticism acknowledged all approach to learning which is equally systematic and scrupulous so much so that it has a firm claim to scholarship with science and other valid forms of systematic knowing, literary critics uses such fundamental methods as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction and comparison. More importantly, it uses a method which is peculiarly the arts and humanities, a method which is not random and intuitive but patently systematic and critical his method stresses the personal dimension in the process of knowing. It also seeks to characterise the individuality of the object of knowing, using general and universal principles. In literary criticism for instance, the effort is to characterise the individual of a work of literature, an author, a literary period or regional literature. However narrow one may consider scholarly methods, one must include this which stresses the personal aspect of understanding and the individual characteristics of the object of knowing. This much is stated by Wellek and Warren thus:" Literary scholarship has its own valid methods which are not always those or the natural sciences but are nevertheless intellectual methods" (p. 16).
As with the approach so with the scope and nature of learning in literary criticism. They demonstrate its firm claim to scholarship. For example, criticism demonstrates extensive learning by incorporating a wealth of information which is derived through literary research. As such a serious and mature piece of critical writing is permeated with fresh information from various sources from history, sociology and anthropology, political economy, religion, natural and applied sciences, etc, and from far and near including foreign countries. The information is used to elaborate and support whatever point that is made about the work of literature. In short, a serious and mature criticism reflects an extensive consultation of proper authorities and texts which is the hall mark or scholarship.
It is also permeated with exactitude or a sense of fact. Perhaps, we need to repeal the point that criticism is a response to a work or literature. The response must be a true and accurate reflection or events in the work. Every point made must be corroborated by evidence from the work. An abiding premise in criticism therefore "the strict presentation of the fact" which Ranke calls "the supreme law of historiography" (quoted in Bateson, p.10)
So, a critic must get his facts right. This is why all critics who examine the same aspect of a work tend to have a consensus of opinion about the work. As Bteson rightly observes, "it is true, of course, that such as consensus is not always obtainable. Juries disagree and social, political and religious differences complicate our lives; but at lest on literary issues, a degree of consensus is usually to be reached if all the relevant evidence is assembled, examined and checked" (p.9). This task of getting the facts right is a scholarly pursuit. Thus, the critic is a scholar. It is to stress this point that Baton calls him the scholar-critic, the name which he uses for the title of his book on introduction of library research.
The final, third, concept is national development. "National" is used in his lecture with specific regard to Nigeria, assuming that it is a nation. This assumption has been questioned by some scholars who argue that Nigeria is a geographical definition, not a nation. The most recent variation of this argument is that of Soyinka who enunciates the view that "Nigeria is not a nation but a nation space" (quoted in The Guardian, March 4, 2009; 1-2). Whatever is the case, whether as "a nation" or "a nation space", our concern is with Nigeria's development.
Guardian (http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/)
by Simon Obikpeko Umukoro
Being 18th lecture in the series of inaugural lectures of the Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria delivered by Simon Obikpeko Umukoro, professor of English and Literary Studies on Thursday, June 11, 2009.
INTRODUCTION
THIS inaugural is the first in English and Literary Studies here at the Delta State University, Abraka. It, therefore, marks an important stage in the development of our discipline here, ushering it into the league of those in the Faculty of Arts and the entire university in which this academic ritual has been performed. It also serves to offer an insight into our pre-occupation in the discipline and thus help to correct the prejudice and false impression, which the public has on it.
Academics in English and Literary Studies are sometime called "grammar people." This name is less than a compliment. It is a euphemism for alleging that these academics care about their use of English at the expense of substance. This impression which some people have about academics in English and Literary Studies is not correct. In this discipline, we are concerned about substances as much as grammar. Today's inaugural will demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a lot more to English and Literary Studies than grammar.
The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines inaugural as follows (1) "relating to or describing a ceremony that officially marks the beginning of something; (2) a speech, lecture, etc given by someone on taking office or at their inaugurating ceremony."
In the university system, for example, it is required of a newly-appointed professor to deliver an inaugural lecture in order "to demonstrate that he is not an intellectual heretic and to justify his professorship by ample display of the range and depth of his learning" (Ogude, 2000:1). He also uses the opportunity and occasion of the inaugural either "to propound a new theory in his discipline or to engage his society in a worthwhile debate in an area of great importance to that society" (Ogude, 2000;1). And this is done "without being questioned or contradicted in anyway" (Omamor, 2003:2). The inaugural, therefore, provides one rare opportunity for the newly-appointed professor to thrill his audience with the display of what the late Kwame Nkrumah delightfully described as "academic arrogance and intellectual pomposity" (quoted in Ogude, 2000:1).
It may be noted, however, that in many Nigerian universities, including our own Delta State University, the inaugural has got little or nothing to do with the newness of the professor. Actually, I am not new. I attained my professorship 11 years ago. What is important, however, is that it is now my turn to deliver this rare, important lecture at the end of which I will not entertain questions or be contradicted in any way.
One effect of the passage of these 11 years is that it has enabled me to tone down the twin element of arrogance and pomposity, and this may be pardoned by my audience because humility is also the essence of academics. I shall therefore not endeavour to mystify the audience with literary jargons and critical terminologies. I also do not intend to propound a new theory in literary studies. Instead, still in the best tradition of inaugurals, I propose to engage my Nigerian society in an important debate on the destiny of our country, particularly, on how to solve the acute problem of its under-development and make it a modern country where things work. The subject is pursued from the perspective of my discipline and is titled 'Literary criticism, scholarship and national development."
DEFINITION AND CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
Three concepts are crucial to the discussion; it is therefore necessary to define and clarify them. First is literary criticism, which may be approached through the definition of literature. This is because something is more readily defined by what it is not, perhaps what engenders it or what it deals with, but is not it (Andrew Horn, 1981). Literature and literary criticism manifest a similar relationship. One is the basis of the other which in turn, it deals with; "but the two are distinct activities" (Wellek and Warren, 70: P. 15).
Most people in this audience are probably familiar with literature. They must have read one or two books of literature; and have heard of writers such as Sophocles, William Shakespeare, Chinua Achebe and Wole Soyinka. These and a host of other writers worldwide, from the classical period to contemporary times, produce a body of works, which is called literature. What then is Literature?
One way is to define it as a literary art, a creative activity which uses languages as its medium of expression. As Wellek and Warren (1970) explain, "language is the material of literature as stone or bronze is of sculpture, paints of pictures, or sounds of music" (p. 22). Literature can also be clearly defined through the element of fictionality. Every work of Literature (be it a poem, play or novel) presents a human experience. That experience, even in autobiographies such as Camara Laye's The African Child (1954) and Ezekiel Mphalele's Down Second Avenue (1965), is not literally true. It is created or invented out of the writer's imagination. Again, as Wellek and Warren put it, in a work of literature, "the reference is to a world of fiction, of imagination" (p. 25).
However, the writer does not create out of nothing, a feat which is attributable to God only. The writer creates through a mimesis, that is, by representing human beings and events in our physical world of existence. Thus, in spite of or because of this representation, the ultimate nature of literature is its creativity or inventiveness.
What links all this to the definition of our operational concepts is that literature is the subject matter of literary criticism. The latter deals with, or is about the former as Physics and Biology are about natural forces and organisms respectively.
Literary criticism is a species of learning which is concerned with the interpretation of a work(s) of literature for a reading public. This consists of two intellectual activities: explication or analysis and evaluation or judgment. There are, of course, attempts to create tension between the two. For example, it is argued in formalist criticism that a literary work of art is the sum total of all the stylistic devices used therein; and the business of criticism is not to evaluate the work, but purely to analyse and describe stylistic devices (Scott, pp.179-244 and Wellek and Warren, pp. 139-211). But as George Watson (1963) rightly observes, "criticism that counts does not permit us to describe the work without judging it... All describe" (pp. 29-31). In other words, analysis land judgment are two complementary activities of the critical endeavour. However, in order of priorities, analysis precedes judgment, essentially "because a work of literature cannot be judged correctly until it has been (analysed and) understood correctly" (Bateson, 1972:8).
Literary analysis is basically descriptive. It is the act of resolving or breaking up a work of literature into its constituent parts and elements. It tries to describe as succinctly as possible all the elements in a work to the minutest detail, including the determination of the meaning of every world in it. This is to facilitate a full and accurate comprehensive of the multiplicity of form and meaning in a work of literature.
Accompanying this is judgment which is concerned with the discrimination of values and the capacity to deliver an opinion about the rights and wrongs, the good and bad aspects of a literary work of art. This is what every critic must do and no critic should refuse to do. For, as Bateson teaches, "if you cannot tell good literature from bad... your learning is likely to be wasted" (p. 25). This critical function also involves evaluating a work of literature to show whether or not it is relevant to the positive development of society and the individual.
The critic's vocation has been a target of unwarranted charges. One of these is that it is the people who cannot create works of literature who become critics or as George Steniner asks, "who would be a critic if he could be a writer" (1979: 21). This argument is not worthy of response here as it has been consigned to the status of "popular slander" (Krieger, 1984: 17). The critic has also been accused of being "a niggling fault-finder" (reported in Bateson, P.5). This accusation is rather severe and one-sided. The critic does not set out to find faults with a work of literature. He sets out to seek the truth and in the search, he is not blind to the merits of the work. He extols them as much as he exposes the faults. There is another unwarranted charge against the critic's profession even by those who ought to know better. Take, for example, the following argument by Abiola Irle, himself a formidable critic. According to him: There are times when one feels that there is something incongruous about literary criticism as a profession. It must seem slightly odd at the best of times, that an individual should devote an entire adult life to reading and producing commentaries upon what others have written. The opinion one sometimes encounters, that literary criticism is a parasitic activity seems at such times to have a reasonable basis (1988: 93).
The central thesis of this argument is that literary criticisms is parasitic on literature simply because literature is the subject matter of literary criticism. This argument is shaky and is difficult to sustain. As indicated earlier, literary criticism is an intermediary activity. It interprets works of literature for a reading public, making the works more meaningful to the readers. A case of mediation such as this cannot be said to be parasitic. Dan Izevbaye (1988: 106-107), makes the point clearer by offering a parallel activity in order social institutions where professional mediation is not considered a parasitic activity.
For example, in seeking a solution to the economic riddle why the farmer or the manufacturer does not directly market his goods, a concession is made to the Standards Organisation and the distributors who are intermediaries, not parasites. The midwifery profession is predicated on the existence of childbearing women; but no one argues that a midwife is a parasite. Legal advocates plead the cause of litigants; but advocates are not parasitic on litigants. In a similar manner, criticism deals with literature not as a parasite but as a mediator, a role which resounds with symbiotic significance.
This is even so because criticism speaks for literature which is limited in its capacity to speak for itself. Northrop Frye is right when he says that "criticism can talk, and all the arts are dumb. In painting, sculpture or music, it is easy enough to see that the art shows forth, but cannot say anything. And poems are as silent as statues" (1973: 4).
But poems "talk" through criticism and their meaning is articulated by it. In fact, the meaning which a work of literature conveys is the one which is affirmed for it by criticism. There is another sense in which literature is dependent on criticism. A work that is not criticised very easily slips into oblivion; and whatever popularity such writers as Shakespeare and Soyinka have today is equally the result or the critical opinion that has settled on them. Surely, literary criticism is also essential for the survival of literary art.
Another concept that needs to be clarified is scholarship; and in this case, we shall begin by turning to the dictionary. The Chambers 20 Century Dictionary defines "scholarship as learning", that is having the learning or a scholar. The same dictionary defines a scholar as "one whose learning is extensive and exact or whose approach to learning is scrupulous and critical." If all the bits are put together, two related shades of meaning of scholarship emerge (i) the learning that is extensive and exact in scope and quality; (ii) the learning that is derived through a scrupulous and critical approach.
In regard to the second shade of leaning, the scientific method of experimentation is a notable example of the scholarly approach to learning. But it is not the only scholarly approach available to mankind. For example, literary criticism acknowledged all approach to learning which is equally systematic and scrupulous so much so that it has a firm claim to scholarship with science and other valid forms of systematic knowing, literary critics uses such fundamental methods as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction and comparison. More importantly, it uses a method which is peculiarly the arts and humanities, a method which is not random and intuitive but patently systematic and critical his method stresses the personal dimension in the process of knowing. It also seeks to characterise the individuality of the object of knowing, using general and universal principles. In literary criticism for instance, the effort is to characterise the individual of a work of literature, an author, a literary period or regional literature. However narrow one may consider scholarly methods, one must include this which stresses the personal aspect of understanding and the individual characteristics of the object of knowing. This much is stated by Wellek and Warren thus:" Literary scholarship has its own valid methods which are not always those or the natural sciences but are nevertheless intellectual methods" (p. 16).
As with the approach so with the scope and nature of learning in literary criticism. They demonstrate its firm claim to scholarship. For example, criticism demonstrates extensive learning by incorporating a wealth of information which is derived through literary research. As such a serious and mature piece of critical writing is permeated with fresh information from various sources from history, sociology and anthropology, political economy, religion, natural and applied sciences, etc, and from far and near including foreign countries. The information is used to elaborate and support whatever point that is made about the work of literature. In short, a serious and mature criticism reflects an extensive consultation of proper authorities and texts which is the hall mark or scholarship.
It is also permeated with exactitude or a sense of fact. Perhaps, we need to repeal the point that criticism is a response to a work or literature. The response must be a true and accurate reflection or events in the work. Every point made must be corroborated by evidence from the work. An abiding premise in criticism therefore "the strict presentation of the fact" which Ranke calls "the supreme law of historiography" (quoted in Bateson, p.10)
So, a critic must get his facts right. This is why all critics who examine the same aspect of a work tend to have a consensus of opinion about the work. As Bteson rightly observes, "it is true, of course, that such as consensus is not always obtainable. Juries disagree and social, political and religious differences complicate our lives; but at lest on literary issues, a degree of consensus is usually to be reached if all the relevant evidence is assembled, examined and checked" (p.9). This task of getting the facts right is a scholarly pursuit. Thus, the critic is a scholar. It is to stress this point that Baton calls him the scholar-critic, the name which he uses for the title of his book on introduction of library research.
The final, third, concept is national development. "National" is used in his lecture with specific regard to Nigeria, assuming that it is a nation. This assumption has been questioned by some scholars who argue that Nigeria is a geographical definition, not a nation. The most recent variation of this argument is that of Soyinka who enunciates the view that "Nigeria is not a nation but a nation space" (quoted in The Guardian, March 4, 2009; 1-2). Whatever is the case, whether as "a nation" or "a nation space", our concern is with Nigeria's development.
Guardian (http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/)