The empirical science of literature ESL: A new paradigm

Poetics 12 (1963) 19-34 Sorth-Holland Publishing

THE EhIPIRICAL A NEW PARADIGM

SIEGFRIED

19 Company

SCIENCE

OF LITERATURE

ESL:

*

J. SCHMIDT

**

Introduction

In this paper I shall try to present the design for an empirically oriented science of literature (ESL). Since 1973 I have developed ESL in co-operation with the research group NIKOL (P. Finke, W. Kindt, J. Wirrer, R. Zobel) at Bielefeld University [I] and since 1980 I have continued this work with new NIKOL members A. Barsch, H. Hauptmeier. D. Meutsch, G. Rusch and R. Viehoff at Siegen University. ESL differs from empiricized conceptions of literary studies insofar as here the methodical arsenal of the study of literature is not merely enlarged by sociological or psychological procedures; on the contrary. ESL is an attempt to construct a science of literature as a homogeneously founded and oriented net of empirical theory-elements [2]. The epistemological basis of ESL can be derived from radical constructivist theories which - in my opinion [3] - are compatible with the position of a constructive functionalism as developed by P. Finke on the basis of J.D. Sneed’s structuralist view of theories. In contrast to concepts of empirization, ESL, I think, attempts to provide an autonomous paradigm for the study of literature despite the insufficiencies of its current state of elaboration. This claim to paradigmaticity shall be explained and substantiated in the following. 1. A new paradigm?

Since Th.S. Kuhn introduced the notion of paradigm into science, various other sciences, including the study of literature,

the history of have taken up

* Translated into English by H. Hauptmeier. ** Author’s address: S.J. Schmidt, Universitat Siegen. Fachbereich 3. Adolf Reichweinstrasse, 5900 Siegen 1, West Germany. [I] Cf. also the English version of Schmidt 1980a (Schmidt 1982b) [2] In the German-speaking area concepts of empirization have been propounded especially by Groeben. For detailed criticism on empiricized studies of literature cf. Hauptmeier 1981. [3] I have inserted ‘in my opinion’ here since this assumption has always given rise to controversies in the SIKOL-group.

0304-422X/83/0000-0000/$03.00

0 1983 North-Holland

20

S.J. Schmidt / The Empirical Science oj Literature

this notion in a rather associative manner. Many new, vague, conceptions hav passed themselves off as a new paradigm. So it would not seem to be wise t, characterize, in the same way, one’s own new conception as a paradigm; th less so since Kuhn himself did not clearly define his notion of paradigm as i reported by his critics. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to apply the notion of paradigm to ESL: if this notion is sufficiently explicated it may promot distinguishability for the comparison of rival theories and for the representa tion of the history of theoretical systems. In the following the notion o paradigm is used to describe the systematical frameworks of scientific actior Accordingly, this notion of paradigm involves the following four Kuhnial coordinates: (a) symbolic generalizations (scientific terminology): (b) models (favorite analogies and metaphors); (c) values (meta-theoretical orientations); (d) exemplars (illustrative problem-solvings) [4]. These coordinates comprise all important orientational complexes of decision underlying the actions of a scientific community. As I see it, ESL probabl: differs from all other schools and tendencies in literary studies by its coheren interpretation of the above four coordinates. Hence the fact of a new paradign can now be described in a non-metaphorical, explicit manner as I demon strated in Schmidt (1980a, 1982a) as well as in empirical applications o ESL-theory-elements (Hintzenberg et al. 1980; Schmidt and Zobel 1983). Th meta-scientific foundation of ESL is derived from Finke’s (1982) conception o a constructive functionalism. In the following paragraphs I shall try to give a short outline of both thl theoretical foundation and the structure of ESL. So I am concerned tc demonstrate that in principle the theoretical foundations - from epistemolog: and meta-theory to object-theory - are homogeneously constructed, i.e., tha they can be assigned to the same type of epistemological and meta-theoretica hypotheses. 2. Epistemological

foundations

of ESL [5]

The epistemological foundation of ESL which is essentially influenced b: biological and psychological works of Maturana (1982) and von Glasersfeli (1983) can be regarded as radical-constructivist. I would now like to summariz the most important aspects of this conception. [4] According to this division Kuhn’s notion of conceptions that make possible or develop empirical nates (b) and (d) are interpreted empirically. [j] For details cf. Schmidt 1982b, c, d.

‘normal science’, I think. applies theories,

i.e. conceptions

to WC where the coordi

S.J. Schmidt / The Empirical Science of Ltterature

21

(a) Human beings are living systems. Living systems are auto-generative, i.e. autopoietic systems which are self-referentially and homeostatically organized, autonomous, structurally determined and operationally closed. Organisms equipped with nervous systems like human beings are able to develop self-consciousness and to observe themselves and their environment. From an episternological point of view, we thus have to distinguish properly between systems and observers, system-categories and observer-categories [6]. (b) The cognitive domain of an autopoietic system is the domain of all descriptions that the system can produce. This implies that the specific mode of the system’s autopoiesis determines the system’s cognition. Strictly speaking, cognition is in principle a subject-depenc-lent phenomenon. All cognitive states of the cognizing individual are determined by its mode of realizing autopoiesis and not by the conditions of an objective (subject-independent) environment. Thus reality or environment are not ontological entities but a construction of man: “We literally produce the world ue live in by living in it” (Maturana 1982: 269; my translation). Concepts such as absolute knowledge, absolute truth, objective reality, ultimate foundations, or absolute values are thus irreconcilable with this approach. There can only be subject-dependent knowledge which is achieved and confirmed by successful autopoiesis. Following phylogenic routines, living systems operate inductively and predictively, i.e. they presuppose that what happened once will happen again; and only that is repeated nhich functioned in the past. This is the reason why subjectivity of cognition and successful operation within a physical environment are not contradictory. There are viable and non-viable constructs developed by living systems. But it is inadmissible to infer from the viability of a construct to its ontological truth. Scientific knowledge, too, is strictly subject-dependent. Its so-called exactness or objectivity is not based on adequate (approximate) correspondence to reality but scientific knowledge is the product of the cultural homogeneity of obsemers who have agreed upon certain categories for evaluating certain constructs as scientifically valid constructs. This kind of epistemology may remind some philosophically minded readers of solipsistic positions. The differences between radical constructivism and solipsism can be explained as follows: - radical constructivism formulates an empirically founded, biological theory of cognition _ radical constructivism operates beyond the epistemic duality of subject and object, reality and imagination; it argues for the subject as a cognitive domain wherein reality-models are constructed and objects and other living systems are constituted by ‘descriptions’ (i.e. processes of representation [6] The observer, for instance, describes such deformations which a system undergoes by the “reception of a message’ as the “recording of information” whereas ‘information’ is not a meaningful category for the system itself.

21

S.J. Schmrdr /

The Emprrical

Science of Llrerarurr

cannot be eliminated from the process of cognition); the observer - a physicists from Einstein to Prigogine have emphasized too - is always th ultimate source for each cognition that is, e.g. our habitual dualisms are nc ‘real facts’ but constructions of observers. (c) It is Maturana’s accentuation of the closedness of living systems by whit it becomes possible to estimate the dimensions of the impact of social mecha nisms such as socialization convention and consensus. Living systems ar interactional systems that mutually construct consensual domains emergin from the connection of structures. Interaction always precedes communicatior communication can only function because living systems as observers interac with other systems, imputing to these other systems that they are observer themselves - an imputation which. due to common biological equipment ant in case of comparable socialization. is quite justified. The rules and strategie for constructing “sense”, “reality”, and “meaning” regulating the subject’ actions are taught, permanently confirmed. or corrected within linguistic an non-linguistic socialization - including even the rules for constructing an balancing personal identity. In this connection, language is of course a domi nant factor. Natural language, however. is a closed domain uhich’ cannot b transcended by linguistic means. Communication cannot be regarded as transfer of information; it is rather an attempt to achieve a somenhat paralle or compatible construction of cognitive orientational processes within th cognitive domains of two or more living systems. Hence there is nothing bu parallel sequences of subject-internal orientational interactions which are mad possible by linguistic socialization. Furthermore there is no possibility o convincing a differently-minded person solely by rational argumentation un less he is vvilling to accept such arguments on the basis of common interests friendship. love, or other sympathetic factors.

3. IMeta-theoretical

foundations

of ESL

Some relevant findings of this empirical theory of cognition. such as th rejection of (at least any realist) ontology, the rejection of claims to objectiv knowledge, absolute truth or ultimate foundation could serve as an empiric: scientific basis of a philosophy of science following Sneed’s and Stegmueller’ non-statement view. Kuhnian historiography of science, and Finke’s construe tive functionalism. The advantages of combining radical constructivism wit modern philosophy of science can be summarized as follows: (a) Knovvledge is subject-dependent; it is a construction of subjects i! accordance with their biological and social conditions of cognition. Scientifi theories are explicit constructions developed by a group of scientists in order ti overcome (in accordance with the group’s criteria) such deficits in expianatiol vvhich the group agrees must be overcome. From a functional point of vieu

S.J. Schmidt / The Empirtcal

Science of Literature

23

theories are problem-solving strategies; they must be structurally and functionally adequate to problems (and vice versa). Such theories must possess definite structures vvhich - according to Finke are decidable within the framework of a so-called Sneed-matrix. By a Sneedmatrix Finke means - the explicitness of the logical structure of the problem-solving strategy - an identifiable theoretical predicate - the empirical interpretability of the problem-solving strategy. (6) According to Sneed. theories are set theoretically describable mathematical structures combined with a class of intended applications - but not systems of statements. Languages used in scientific theories are theoretical languages, i.e. theory relativized languages (possibly) ranging on hierarchically different levels of theoreticity [7]. In the light of this conception, philosophically essential problems of empiricism and positivism in older analytical philosophies of science are now without any foundation, for instance, the (Carnapian) observational-theoretical dichotomy, or the ontological difference between theory and experience: for Sneed points out that only theories in the frameworks of paradigms enable us to achieve ‘empirical knowledge’ by constructing models for “reality”. Hence such models cannot be tested against “reality”, but they can only be confronted with other models. The empirical content of a theory is exactly what ue can say about the objects of the theory without using the language of this theory [8] (the so-called T-theoretical terms). (c) Theories and theory-elements can be represented set theoretically as ordered pairs (K, 1) consisting of a core (K) and a set of intended applications (1). K is a quintuple consisting of the following elements:

K= (M,,, M,,

M,

c, L)

MPPis

the set of all partial potential models of a theory i.e. those domains of entities about which the theory shall say something (these entities must be describable in non-T-theoretical terms): is the set of potential models, i.e. domains of entities extended by MP theoretical functions of T, M is the set of models: i.e. the class of entities satisfying the basic mathematical structure of T; C is the set of special constraints, i.e. a sub-set of the power set of M which must be satisfied for each application of T; L is the set of special laws or regularity-assumptions in terms of Eibl (1976); these laws can also be represented in sub-theories of T obtained by core specializations so that the structure of K can be represented as a quadruple. [7] For details of representation cf. Stegmueller (1973). [8] For other possibilities of representing the empirical

claims of theories

cf. Stegmueller

(1973).

24

S.J. Schmidt / The Empirical Scrence of Luerature

Roughly speaking, the structure of a theory provides - an identification of the intended domain of application of - a characterization of research domains, which might be partly potent models of T. by using T-non-theoretical terms; - an introduction of T-theoretical terms by which elements of Mpp can characterized as potential models ( Mp) of T; _ a proof that a certain part of the research domain can be identified as model of T by virtue of given T-theoretical terms. and information abc which laws and constraints are valid in M. As an example I would like to quote the logical structure production as developed in Schmidt (1980a: ch. 5.1.4): The logical structure of a thee?

of a theory of litera

of literary productron (TLP)

The domain of intended applications (I) of TLP can be represented as a set of actic (including their contexts) resulting in such linguistic KO.MMUNIKATE [9] which are conside and treated as literary KOMhlUNIKATE by their authors. Partial potential models of TLP are actions (incl. their contexts) that are or have be described in everl;day language or in a-terminological traditional terms of literary studies actions resulting in a text which its author regards as a literary KOMMUNIKAT. To transform .V,, into potential models ( Afp) of TLP the following TLP-theoretical terms introduced: Literary (abbr. L) producer. L-system of preconditions of L-producers, L-product] situation, L-production strategy. L-production action. L-production result. Models (Af) of TLP can be represented as such actions (incl. their contexts) which can identified as “literary production actions” by means of the TLP-theoretical apparatus: e.g.. Kafka’s production of Das Urteil, R. Musil’s production of Der Mann ohne Eigenschoften. or Joyce’s production of Dubliners. The fundamental laws applied to the construction of the definition of TLP-theoretical ter are equivalent IO the laws of the theory of literary communicative interaction (TLCI); these t laws (i.e. the aesthetic and polyvalence conventions) also combine TLP with TLCI. The most important general constraint (C,) is that exclusively those production actions ; defined as literary production actions where agents present their production result as a liter; KOMMUNIKAT. X second general constraint (C,) on TLP is that exclusively those producti actions are investigated as literary production actions where factually a text is produced as action result. The central set theoretic predicate of TLP can be formulated as: P acts as a producer in I LITERATURE-system [IO], or P as a producer participates in literary communication.

(d) Theory-elements (such as TLP) are linked together into a theory-net I so-called intertheoretic relations, e.g., - by theoretization (T) new theoretical functions are introduced (Mk, c M, - by specialization (u) certain laws are assigned to certain sub-sets of I restrictions. i.e. the empirical claims of the theory-element are narrow1

[9] Cf. section 6 of this paper. [lo] Cf. the discussion of these concepts

in section 4 of this paper

S.J. Schmidr / The Empirical Science of Literature

down to special domains: %P = MPP

M; = Mp M’GM C’c c I’ c I -

by complementation (K) different parts of the picture are looked at through different magnifying glasses (rl, 2”” UT and T’ * Y) - the reduction relation (p) reduces the core of a theory K(T) to the core of another theory K’(Y), i.e. the empirical claims of T’ and T must be identical, and T’ must admit of more empirical claims than T: so T’ can be proved to be a more efficient theory than T within a theory-net.

4. An object-theoretical

sketch of ESL

In constructing a conception of literary studies as much as in deciding for an existing conception, we must always explicitly ask about the possibilities of a foundation and application of literary studies on the basis of pre-given epistemological and metascientific premises (here: constructivity and need-orientedness of cognition). Action in the domain of literary studies as well as action in general is social action of individuals performed according to rules and conventions; it is action arising from needs and interests, presupposing motivations and intentions of subjects, having results and consequences. Whoever pursues literary studies (at least in the German tradition) participates in operations with the social action system SCIENCE [l 11. The performance of such operations requires decisions as to - the conception of science to be realized - the conception of society - the conception of literature. In the first place these decisions are related to rules, conventions, values, and norms assumed to be valid for the above conceptions. Hence such decisions regulate the scientist’s preconceptions about the structure and function of literary studies. Both structure and function of literary studies must allow of explicit formulation, if the study of literature is to be pursued as a science that can be taught and learnt. The question of which rules and conventions one wants to accept or realize by this kind of action cannot be separated from the question of uhich values one holds in (all) other social action systems (like politics, economics, art.

[I l] The capital

letters shall denote

a theoretical

term in contrast

to the colloquial

term ‘science’.

26

S.J. Schmidt / The Empvrcal

Screncr qi L~rerature

education, etc.) The values and postulates [ 12) striven for in ESL can b subsumed under the following headings L\-hich merely illustrate tendencies i ESL: - “enlightenment” in the sense of an ability to be critical and self-critica maturity, self-responsibility, rationality; _ “solidarity” in the sense of reducing power of man over man, reduction c intolerance, knowledge- and truth-terrorism; - “co-operation” in the sense of conflict-reducing interaction and comma problem-solving. The realization of such values involves among other things: _ empirical knowledge of social and psychic processes; - transparency of the regulatedness of social processes; - co-operation in social action. Thus scientific action which intends to contribute to establishing within the framework of society must - provide empirical knowledge; - be intersubjectively sharable; - be relevant for applications to social and individual needs.

such value

Hence follows that two criteria must be fulfilled: scientific action must satisf the criteria of stringency and relevance. ‘Stringency’ means: it must fulfil th fundamental meta-theoretical values of empiricity and theoreticity as well a the derivative theoretical values of structurality and functionality. In a vvor( scientific problem-solving strategies must possess a definite logical structur which allows of empirical interpretation. ‘Relevance’ means: in the study c literature, knowledge must meet scientific demands and be useful for practic: problems within and outside literary communication [13]. Here it must b considered that empirical theories can only provide partial solutions of prot lems. The decision on further meta-theoretical values like consistency, complett ness, provability, decidability etc. is a theoretical implication of the adoptio of the above-mentioned practical values. For this implies that need-orientec explicit, teachable and learnable theories promoting empirical knowledge ar available if it is expected that people want to realize rational. solidly unite’ and co-operative action within the action system SCIENCE too. The postulate of empiricity, however, must not be confounded with posit vist claims to the validity of pure observational statement. On the contrar!

[12] Cf. Schmidt 1982a: ch. 0. [I31 For practical applications of ESL to literary

insrruction

a: school cf. Schmidt

1982a: ch.

S.J. Schmrdr / The Empirrcal Science of Lirerarure

27

‘empiricity’ is relative to a reality-model accepted by a group of scientists at a certain time. Such reality models are valid among scientists as long as they are likely to provide enough problem-solving capacity for the group concerned, and as long as no rival models are developed by another group of scientists and adopted within the action system SCIENCE. Likewise the methods for testing a theory which must be just as teachable and learnable as the theory itself. are only valid relative to the dominant reality-model of a scientific community. The postulate of empiricity creates an extreme need for description and explanation. The decisions on methods satisfying the need requires certain criteria. These criteria, however, can only be decided within the frameworks of theories. For these two reasons the decision for empiricity necessarily involves a decision for theoreticity. ‘Theoreticity’ means that problem-solving strategies must be definitely assignable to a certain paradigm and that such strategies must be structurally well-defined (see above: sections 1 and 3a). The two goals of an empirical science of literature are: a theoretical explanation of literary actions as historical and social actions; practical changes in actions within the LITERATURE-system (see below) in accordance with explicitly formulated values, i.e.. values which may make plausible the desirability and the function of changes, and which - on the basis of empirical knolvledge - may also indicate the practicableness of changes in the LITERATURE-system. For the study of literature, the application of research findings presupposes that empirical scientific knowledge is available for practical (social) application, and that the theories underlying and constituting empirical research have reached a sufficiently high degree of development and completeness (at least their systematic basis should be complete). On the one hand, explanations are structural explanations for LITERATURE-systems as systems which are determined by laws or characterized by regularity-assumptions, and on the other hand they are functional explanations specifying literary processes as a satisfaction of literary needs within the LITERATURE-system of a society (cf. Finke 1982). In this conception, society - in a word - is represented as a system of systems of social action like politics, economics, religion, education etc. As a system, society is delimitated from other phenomena (e.g. from nature), it is structured according to the relations of its partial systems, and finally it is given a non-subsumable function for its members (e.g. reproduction or maintenance). From an epistemological point of view, societies are allopoietic systems which are composed of autopoietic systems, organizing the individual behavior of these constitutive systems. Cultures developed within societies can be described as a specific mode of evolving, combining and evaluating methods for the construction of reality-models; that is, different cultures are not merely different forms of processing only one “objective reality” but ultimately they are incommensurable forms of constructing models of reality, experience, and values.

28

S.J. Schmidt ,’ The Empirml

Science of’ L~ierurrrre

Literarure is represented

in a model of literary ncrion (not in a model of literar texrs!). An individual performs a literary action if he produces or interacts wit a text which he regards as a literary text on the basis of his poetic creeds. Tlfundamental empirical hypothesis concerning literary action in general is: 1 our society there is a system which can be described as a system of literar action. This system is a part of the social system ART. The system consists ( the set of all actions focussing on texts which are regarded and rated as literat texts by acting individuals (= LITERATURE-system) [ 141. The structure of tlLITERATURE-system can be described in terms of temporal and caus: relations betaeen those types of action which are performed by individua rating texts as literary texts: i.e. production, mediation. reception, and pos processing of “literary texts”: LITERATURE

(“

= JCT(LP 8 LM F! LR e LPP)

+

LP = Production of “literary texts’ “ +- ” = presupposes: “literary texts”; etc.) [ 151 delimiting the LITERATURE-system from other systerr conventions which are introduced and illustrated as tlaesrheric contention and the polyvalence convenrion in Schmidt 1980. Th aesthetic convention [ 161 is defined as follows: ” = and then; LM = 1Mediation of The criterion for is provided by two

It is expected in our society of all partictpants \vho intend to reahzs aesthetic KOMMUSIK.AT from linguistic TEXTS that they must be willing and able to de-emphasize the fact convention ar to expand their action potential (or the action potential of other participants) beyond the triter of true,/false and useful/useless: instead the! orient themselves touard aesthetically releva categories; they must be willing and able to designate communicate actions intended as litera with appropriate signals during productton. or to follow such signals during reception; and final1 to select as a frame of reference for the referring expressions in the text not primarily (or n exclusively) the socially established model of reality. but other frames of reference as well.

The polyvalence

convention

is defined

as follovvs:

It is shared knowledge in our society for all participants in literary communicative interaction th (a) text producers are not bound by the monovalence convention; (b) text receivers have the freedom to produce different KOMMUNIK~TE from the same TEX in different times and situations, and they expect others to do likewise: (c) text receivers rate the realization of aesthetic KOMhlUNIKATE as optimal, though tl grounds for this rating may differ among participants and situations; (d) text mediators and post-processors should not act in conflict with the aspects of the poly7 lence convention in (a) through (c). [ 141 Capital letters denote ESL-theoretical terms. [15] For differentiations between histortcally provable variants of this structure cf. Schmtdt 1980 ch. 4.4. [ 161 Some empirical evidence for the validity of this convention in Germany is given in 1 Hintzenberg et al.. 1980.

S.J. Schmidt / The Empirical

29

Science of Literature

The function of the LITERATURE-system, which no other system satisfies. can be explicated as a simultaneous activation and integration of subject-oriented cognitive, emotional, and moral processes and states in the assignment of literary KOIMMUNIKATE to appropriate TEXTS.

5. The structure of the theory-net of ESL The Empirical Theory of Literature sketched in section 4 is too complex to be represented within one theory-element. According to the present state of elaboration, an exposition of ESL and its dimensions of action-orientedness requires a theory-net. Disregarding technical details, the ESL-theory-net can be roughly outlined as is shown in fig. 1. (As far as we can see now, the intertheoretical relations between the elements of this theory-net can be subsumed under the Sneedian types of theoretization and specialization.) The structure of this theory-net shall also illustrate that the LITERATURE-system is a unit of action which defines the properties and relations of its elements through its organization. In contrast to text-ontological concepts, this also implies a fundamentally changed theoretical modeling of “literary works”; for “literary works” are not regarded as autonomous entities but as resultants of the LITERATURE-system and of the actions organized in it: Text I Cognition

Ii

c, cf

Action f Agent

in the LITERATURE-system

in the system of SOCIETY

(“

e+

”

= necessary

1

implication)

theory of action

I

theory of communication

I theory of aesthetic communication

I theory of literary communication‘

I

--ieory

of literary prodc:cion

Fig. 1.

theory of literary mediation

theory of literary reception

theory of literary post-processing

30

S.J. Schmidt / The Empirical Science of Literature

6. What’s new, Pussy Cat? Well, now, what’s new with ESL? (a) According to the notion of paradigm explicated in the first chapter, ES1 is a ne\v paradigm in comparison with rival tendencies or schools because, i ESL, the framenork conditions of scientific action are different from those c other approach to the study of literature. and because these conditions ar explicit!v determined, i.e. - the elements of a scientific terminology are introduced in a teachable an learnable manner by means of various methods (explicit definitions, exam ples etc.); - the basic model of the theory is specified as literary action (not as literar objects!); - values are explicitly adopted from radical constructivism (= epistemolog) and constructive functionalism (= metatheory); - there are first exemplars, i.e. empirical studies of details of social actions i the LITERATURE-system. (b)

What is new is that at the meta-scientific level, this paradigm is oriente towards analytical-functional concepts (instead of hermeneutical-historic; concepts) without thereby neglecting the historicity and sociality of all action in historical systems. Hence traditional analytic philosophy of science as we as traditional concepts of history are considerably modified: - analytic philosophies of science are modified through the foundation of ES’ on a constructivist theory of cognition and science _ concepts of history through the constructivist epistemological approach, i.c living systems as systems always operate in the present time. they ca produce their history and other histories only through constructional act (through “narration”) as observers. Following this conception of history (c G. Rusch 1983). there can be no approximation to historical truths but onl models of histories on the basis of data in accordance with certain rules c construction (cf. a model-study on G. Trakl by G. Rusch and S.J. Schmid 1983). Such models vary with the data and the applied rules of constructior (c) The core of ESL consists of an Empirical Theory of LITERATURE. I general. ESL must be considered to be an empirical social science trying t orient research towards application and to bring about changes in the LITER ATURE-system according to its models and values. ‘Orientation toward application’ means that - ESL can function as a problem-solving ‘apparatus’ for problems within th LITERATURE-system _ ESL can do research work commissioned by institutions within or outsid the LITERATURE-system - ESL can offer scientific advice for literary politics

S.J. Schmdt

-

/ The Empirical

Science of’ Lirerarrrre

?I

ESL can conduct experimental research (simulation, construct-planning) in the LITERATURE-system [ 171. (d) Research problems of ESL and hence the construction of its research domain are not oriented towards ontologized texts - as all hitherto existing conceptions of literary studies are but towards TEXT-action-relations (-syndromes) in the framework of the social action system LITERATURE. This new orientation involves a series of fundamental changes in the work of literary scholars. Above all. these changes have to do uith the constructivist concept of language and meaning. Meanin g is strictly subject-dependent, bound to the subject; meaning cannot be transferred. In the course of linguistic socialization, individuals are compulsorily trained for linguistic stereotypes and conventions in as far as this appears to be requisite for the interests of social groups and in as far as this serves the needs of the subjects. Owing to this kind of linguistic socialization. there is the possibility of processes of parallel meaning-construction with regard to one TEXT in different subjects; the subjects as obseroers interpret this phenomenon as successful communication. In ESL, these semantic processes are clarified by the distinction between TEXT and KOMMUNIKAT [ 181. A TEXT is defined as those physical phenomena which are identified as linguistic objects (TEXTS in a natural language) by subjects A KOlMMUNIKAT is defined as a combination of those cognitive structures which in reception processes are assigned to TEXTS by subjects. The structures are always emotionally ‘loaded’ and practically relevant to subjects. Hence TEXTS haoe no meaning but meaning is assigned to them through cognitive acts of subjects; meanings are strictly subject-dependent and can only be compared inter-subjectively insofar as conventions admit of parallel cognitive operations. In a word. meanings are always results of human action and not textual properties (T means (Y for an agent A in a situation S). Analogous to this distinction, literariness cannot be regarded as a textual property but as a result of actions of analysis and evaluation performed by subjects within an action system. Consequently, TEXTS cannot be literate but merely KOMMUNIKATE which are rated as literary by subjects according to the norms of poeticity held by them at a certain time and in certain situations. (A regards T as literary according to the norm fV in a situation S.) The theory of language and semantics underlying this distinction has decisive influences on other problems of literary studies, and on the problems of fictionality and interpretation. Fictionality, for instance, can no longer be dealt with as a text-semantic problem in ESL; rather it must be considered on the level of linguistic pragmatics as a problem of a conventional conditions in the complex system of preconditions of acting individuals (agents) within the LITERATURE-system: on the level of discourse. ‘fictionality’ denotes a (171 Cf. G. Rusch [IS]

Cf. Schmidt

1981/82. 1982d.

32

S.J. Schmidr / The Empmal

Swnce

of Literature

relation between

cognitive, semantic units and states of reality-models which ; agent - in his social group and at the time of action - holds to be true (cf. fc details Schmidt 1980a). The total conventionality of this relation becomes qui evident if, on the one hand, poetic values and norms are regarded as historic and social variables, and if, on the other hand, reality-models are regarded ; cognitive constructs of subjects (cf. section 2). (e) What is furthermore new, I think. is the approach of ESL to the proble of literary interpretation. The fact that there have always been demands fc ESL to prove that it allows of ‘better’ interpretations indicates that textu interpretation is still considered to be the central task of literary studie Without going into the details of this problem here, I would yet like to mentic some tendencies in ESL with regard to this domain: - following the constructivist conception of a strict subject-dependency t meanings (= KOMMUNIKATE about TEXTS) it is unreasonable to defir interpretation as the determination of the “true meaning”; - the lack of a theory and methodology of interpretation satisfying tl meta-theoretical standards propounded in ESL gives rise to doubts abet the possibility of interpretation as a scientific operation; - furthermore, ESL asks the question Lvhether scientific interpretation woul be undesirable for the development of the LITERATURE-system as it coul cut off the discourses on literary KOMMUNIKATE and finally replan them; it appears to be more reasonable for ESL to represent interpretatic as an open, not scientifically regulated set of different discourses wherei amateurs and experts publicly or privately talk and argue about their textu understanding in order to ensure and establish a temporary consensus abol themes or problems relevant to them. about innovation and tradition, abol hedonistic values etc. inherent to their literary KOMMUNIKATE; - moreover, ESL is concerned with the empirical processes accompanyir operations of understanding connected with literary KOMMUNIKAT

[191.

(f)

The conceptions presented above are based on the ESL-typical distinctic between participation in the LITERATURE-system and analysis of tl LITERATURE-system. On the one hand, this distinction implies a cle: separation of scientific actions from non-scientific actions in relation to tl LITERATURE-system; and on the other hand, it requires the scientist fc each action to reflect upon whether the action is a scientific or a non-scientif action, and above all to reflect upon the reasonableness of the action i concern. (g) An essential, though not unproblematic novelty of ESL is its orientatic rewards application (cf. paragraph c). What is new here is that the consider;

[19] Cf. for further details Schmidt

1982d

S.J. Schmidr / The Empirical

Science of Literarure

33

tion of both the utility of literary-scientific knowledge and the satisfaction of needs through literary and literary-scientific action is established in the metatheoretical values of ESL. At present, however, it is still difficult to clarify under which conditions the application of literary scientific knowledge can be advocated as we are unable to calculate precisely the effects and side-effects of applications (which is always impossible, but this has never excluded applications or orientations towards application in other action systems): and furthermore it is still an open question which normative concepts can be made plausible for the establishment of a subsequent social consensus.

7. Concluding

remarks

The rough outline of the ESL-enterprise given in this paper shall now be concluded with a list of additional scientific activities in ESL: (a) In the second volume of my Grundriss der Empirischen Literatunrissenschufr (Schmidt 1982a) I tried to show how and whether traditional problems of partial disciplines of the study of literature (i.e. literary history, literary sociology, literary psychology, literary criticism, and literary didactics) can be taken up, revised, and scientifically treated within the framework of ESL. (b) Empirical investigations in partial domains of ESL are published or now being brought to a close: - for the domain of literary production cf. Schmidt and Zobel (1983) - for the domain of literary reception cf. Hintzenberg et al. (1980) - for the domain of literary history cf. Rusch and Schmidt (1983). (c) Meanwhile a documentation of the state of empirical research in the study of literature is available (cf. Schmidt 1981). Viehoff is preparing an omnibus volume on empirical studies of literature during the last 80 years. The NIKOL-group is planning to publish a volume on ‘Applied Studies of Literature’. Finally, a new journal (SPIEL: Siegener Periodicium fiir Internationale Empirische Literatutwissenschaft, eds. S.J. Schmidt and R. Viehoff) has been established (1982: no. 1, 1983: no. 2) which will publish empirical studies of literature.

References Eibl, Karl. 1976. Kritisch-rationale Literaturwissenschaft. (UTB 583.) Munich: Fink. Finke, Peter, 1982. Konstruktiver Funktionalismus. Die wissenschaftstheoretische empirischen Theorie der Literatur. (Konzepdon Empirische Literaturwissenschaft, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg. van Glasersfeld, Ernst, 1983. Beitrage zum Konstruktivismus. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: (in prep.).

Basis einer vol. II.) Vieweg

34

S.J. Schmdr

/

The Emprical

Science qt’ Llrerurure

Hauptmeier, Helmut. 1981. Paradigm lost - paradigm regained: the persistence of hermeneut conceptions in the empiricised study of literature. Poetics IO (6): 561-582. Hintzenberg, Dagmar, Siegfried J. Schmidt and Reinhard Zobel. 1980. Literaturbegriff un Rezipientenverhalten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (Konzeption Empirische Literatu wissenschaft. ~01s. III/IV.) Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Viewsg. hlaturana. Humberto R., 1982. Erkennen: die Organisation und Verkorperung von Wirklichkei vol. 19.) Braunschweig/Wiesbadei (Wissenschaftstheorie. Wissenschaft und Philosophie, Vieweg. Rusch, Gebhard, 1981/82. Uberlegungsn zur Angewandten Literaturwissenschaft. NIKOL-pape unpublished. Rusch, Gebhard. 1983. Konstruktivistische Geschichtstheorie. (In prep.) Rusch, Gebhard and Siegfried J. Schmidt, 1983. Das Voraussetzungssystem Georg Trakl (Konzeption Empirische Literaturxissenschaft. vol. VI.) Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg (i press). Schmidt, Siegfried J., 1980a. Grundriss der empirischen Literatunvissenschaft. Part I: Der gesrl schaftliche Handlungsbereich LITERATUR. (Konzeption smpirische Literaturwissenschaf vol. I. I.) Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg. Schmidt, Siegfried J., 1980b. Fictionality in literary and non-literary discourse. Poetics 9 (j/6 525-546. Schmidt, Siegfried J., ed.. 1981. Empirical studies in literature. Poetics 10 (4/j). Schmidt, Siegfried J.. 1982a. Grundriss der empirischen Literarurwissenschaft. Part 2: Zur Rt konstruktion literaturwissenschaftlicher Fragestellungen in der empirischen Theorie dr LITERATUR. (Konzeption empirische Literaturwissenschafr. vol. I. 2.) Braunschweig/Wie: baden: Vieweg. Schmidt, Siegfried J., 1982b. Foundations for the empirical study of literature. The components c a basic theory. (Trans. by R.A. de Beaugrande.) Hamburg: Buske. Schmidt, Siegfried J., 1982~. Unsere Welt - und das ist alles. hlsrkur 36 (4): 356-366. Schmidt, Siegfried J.. 1982d. ‘Text. Subjekt und Gesellschaft. .Aspekte einer konstruktivistische Semantik’. In: Festschrift fur Peter Hartmann. Tubingen: Sarr (in press). Schmidt, Siegfried J. and Reinhard Zobel, 1983. Empirische Cntersuchungen zu Personlichkeit! variablen von Literaturproduzenten. (Konzeption Empirische Literaturwissenschaft, vol. V Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg. Stegmiiller, Wolfgang, 1973. Theorie und Erfahrung. Part 2: Theorienstrukturen und Theorier dynamik. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer. StegfriedJ. Schmidr was professor of text theory (since 1971). and professor of theory of literatur (since 1973) at the University of Bielefeld. Since 1979 he is professor of German literature an Literatunvissenschaft at the University of Siegen. He has published several books and articles o philosophy of language, text theory. aesthetics, theory of literature, concrete and conceptu; poetry. Among his recent publications are Grundriss der Empirischen Literaru~~rrsenschu~r (198( and einsal oder die stammrolle, errBhlmg ( 1980).