By Dr. Ali Muhammad Yassin – University of Karbala – College of Islamic Sciences

The critical approaches have varied and diversified according to the perspective from which they view the literary text. If the psychological approach focuses on the conscious and unconscious issues that the creator has experienced, the social approach has its own angle. It views the literary text as a mirror reflecting reality in a direct manner, based on either a literal or dialectical imitation. The structuralist linguistic approach, on the other hand, sees the literary text as a structure detached from the contexts that produced it. This structure is ultimately a system of linguistic elements based on either conflicting or cohesive relationships. In contrast, the reception approach restores confidence to the reader, granting them a higher value and authority almost equivalent to the authority of the creator himself during their interaction with the text, aiming to interpret it and create a new meaning not previously existing. In the following lines, we will briefly summarize the essential foundations and premises of the reception theory as established by its key figures and schools, connecting this with the role of the reader in this theory.

The early signs of reception theory emerged in East Germany in the mid-1960s within the embrace of the (Konstanz) and East Berlin schools. This theory initially relied on phenomenological philosophy, which believes in the self and its ability to be present in things, and that consciousness is an event and is complete through it. The recognition of the phenomenon’s meaning is based on understanding and emanates from pure self-energy that contains it. This means restoring value to the subjective dimension in an attempt to determine the value and essence of the objective dimension. The phenomenological theory of art views the literary work not only as the text itself but also as the actions related to it resulting from the process of responding to it. Thus, this theory distanced itself from other theories that neglected the reader as an active entity in approaching the text, aiming to extract meaning from the text through arbitrary methods, such as focusing on references to real-world contexts or relying on bibliographical methods to understand the creator’s life and circumstances, or isolating the text from its creative and receptive contexts, treating it as a closed linguistic structure.

The most notable feature of the German school is the existence of two major, contrasting directions: the Berlin group and the Konstanz group. The first was based on a philosophical theoretical foundation derived from Marxist theory, believing that artistic communication involves four elements: the author, the text, the recipient, and society. As a result, this group criticized the aesthetics of reception promoted by the Konstanz school, especially its method of separating the dialectical relationship between production and consumption. The separation of production and reception would lead to the loss of all value and ambition for building a new substitutional model.

On the other hand, the Konstanz group is credited with establishing the theoretical foundations of what is known as the “aesthetics of reception,” which restored the true value of the reader and made them a central figure in the philosophical and literary theory. The Konstanz group also increased this role by incorporating the reader into the creative process itself. Unlike the Berlin group, the Konstanz school did not emphasize society, as it views society as present in both the text and the reader and is inherently embedded in both.

The two most prominent theorists of this school are (Hans Robert Jauss) and (Wolfgang Iser). Perhaps the most notable contribution of the former is the concept of the “horizon of expectations,” which he used to describe the criteria that readers follow when judging literary texts in any era. These criteria help determine what is poetic or literary and its degree of difference from what is non-poetic or non-literary in any human language.

Jauss argues that “the artistic effect cannot be completely isolated from everything we might expect from it. The literary work remains conditioned by alterity, i.e., by the relationship to the other as a perceiving subject. Even in cases where the work is purely linguistic creativity that negates or exceeds expectations, it assumes prior knowledge or expectations… That is, no matter how much a work focuses on the formal side, it inherently contains a range of prior information that guides expectation and anticipation. These expectations are measured by the degree of novelty and originality, and the horizon of expectation is formed in the reader through a heritage or a series of previously known works, shaped by the specific conditions of the mind, and arising with the emergence of the new effect based on the laws of its genre and the rules of its play.”

Jauss suggests that the reader must be familiar with the texts and the mechanisms by which those texts operate. This can only be achieved through prolonged interaction, which allows one to sort the accumulation of these texts and gain expertise in observing their temporal progression, noting the breaches, changes, and disruptions to their systems and artistic traditions that have reached the discerning reader over time.

As for the other prominent figure from the Konstanz school, (Wolfgang Iser), who contributed significantly to the development of reception theory, his focus was on phenomenological concepts, drawing from psychology, linguistics, and anthropology, influenced by Polish philosopher Roman Ingarden, and later developing his own ideas.

Iser’s main general hypotheses can be summarized as follows: His theory in the aesthetics of reception revolves around the interaction between the text and the reader who engages in the reading process. The theory is based on three fundamental elements: the text, the reader, and the interaction between them. Iser also did not overlook the importance of these elements’ synergy in the process of meaning-making and self-construction.

Regarding the first element, Iser believes that what is more important than the meaning itself is what arises from it, or more precisely, what emerges during the entire process, which is the significant aesthetic effect with its diversity, multiplicity, and richness. Regarding self-construction, Iser emphasizes the importance of the self’s role in receiving meaning and producing the effect. Thus, meaning is the result of the mutual action between the text and the reader.

Iser also asserts that the literary work has two poles: an artistic pole and an aesthetic pole. The artistic pole lies in the realized text through linguistic structure and the values the author expresses to convey ideological and cognitive loads to the reader. Thus, this pole includes meaning, significance, and formal construction. The aesthetic pole, however, is realized by the reader through reflective reading, capable of interpreting the text and bringing it from its abstract space to a concrete one.

This duality implies that the literary work can perfectly match the text or the perception of the text, while in reality, it occupies an intermediary position between the two.

In conclusion, what the Konstanz school achieved through the works of Jauss and Iser presented new dimensions to the concepts of the creative process and its formations over the years. They also reshaped new concepts about reading, its mechanisms, and the role of the reader in investing and interpreting the text, which gave this theory its uniqueness and distinctiveness.

Thus, reading becomes a process of exploration into the unknown dimensions of literary works and texts of all kinds, delving into semantic layers invisible to anyone except the experienced and perceptive reader, and these meanings do not necessarily align with the creator’s original intent.

………………………………..

References:

• “Discourse and the Reader,” Dr. Hamed Abu Ahmed.
• “Reception Theory: Robert Holub,” Translated by: Azeddine Ismail.
• “The Process of Reading from a Phenomenological Approach,” in the book Reader Response Criticism, edited by Tompkins.