The Affective Fallacy - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
The Affective Fallacy, a critical term in literary theory, refers to the error of judging a literary work based primarily on its emotional effect on the reader. It suggests that a text's value cannot be determined by simply gauging how it makes one feel; the subjective response of the individual reader should not be taken as an objective measure of the work's merit. Often misunderstood as a dismissal of emotion altogether, the Affective Fallacy instead encourages careful analysis of the text itself, separate from personal feelings.
The term first surfaced in 1946, in “The Affective Fallacy,” an essay penned by William K. Wimsatt, Jr., and Monroe C. Beardsley. Appearing in The Sewanee Review, this essay challenged prevailing approaches to understanding and judging literature which overly relied on interpreting personal emotions. Their work emerged from the New Criticism movement, a time when literary scholars were striving for objective approaches to analyzing textual meaning, resisting the then-popular biographical and impressionistic readings. World War II had just ended, and a desire for intellectual rigor and demonstrable evidence permeated many disciplines, including literary study.
Over time, Wimsatt and Beardsley’s concept prompted extensive debate about the role of the reader in creating meaning. While New Criticism eventually waned, the Affective Fallacy continues to influence discussions about subjective experience and literary interpretation. Later reader-response theories, such as those of Stanley Fish, while disagreeing with the Fallacy's core tenets, nevertheless engaged critically with its challenge to ground literary interpretations solely in the text. Thinkers like Louise Rosenblatt offered more nuanced perspectives, acknowledging the inseparable interplay between reader and text, creating a 'literary event' fueled by both. This evolving discourse reflects the perennial tension in literature: how to reconcile the individual's emotional connection with the text and a broader understanding of literary value.
The Affective Fallacy’s legacy persists not only in academic circles but also resonates in contemporary discussions about cultural criticism and the value of art. In an era increasingly focused on individual experience and emotional intelligence, it reminds us to critically examine the relationship between our feelings and objective analysis. Does emotional response invalidate critical judgment, or can it provide a crucial starting point? This question persists, inviting ongoing exploration into the profound complexities of how we engage with literature.