Intended’ and ‘Experienced’ Meaning: Reevaluating the Reader-Response Theory

Abstract

Typically, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason has been discussed in the context of epistemology, the study of human knowing. However, one aspect or implication that scholars seem to have missed is the relevance that Kant’s theory has for the field of literary criticism; in particular, its relation to the “Reader-Response” theory.In this paper, we will reexamine the basic claims of the Reader-Response and ask whether one may draw a connection between the assertions of Immanuel Kant – that truth is construed by the observer – and of proponents of the Reader-Response theory. As it is commonly accepted, the Reader-Response proponents believe that the reader of a given text should receive a more prominent role than he or she is given in the traditional schools of literary criticism. That is, “instead of asking ‘what does this sentence mean?’ one should ask ‘what does this sentence do?’ “ (R. Williams, Literary Meaning). In other words, as soon as a reader approaches the text, he or she “compromises” its meaning by the mere fact of experiencing it. Accordingly, we will want to examine the link between Kantian thinking and the premises that operate behind the logic of the Reader-Response arguments. Without attempting to acknowledge a direct influence of Kantian logic on the Reader-Response theory, we will show that Kant’s epistemology did influence the wider context of philosophy, science and literature and that this influence must be taken into account. We will also want to ask whether criticism of Kantian epistemology may be used against the Reader-Response logic. We will consider the arguments of several of the more important authors who have written on this subject, but will state a more personal, and perhaps controversial, understanding of the issue. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n7p519