The Moral Laboratory

8/19/2019 The Moral Laboratory

1/217


2/217

THE MORAL LABORATORY


3/217

UTRECHT PUBLICATIONS IN

GENERAL AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

Editorial Board

Hans Bertens (chair) – Douwe Fokkema – Harald HendrixJoost Kloek (secretary) – Sophie Levie – Ann Rigney

International Advisory Board

David Bellos (University of Manchester), Keith Busby (University of Oklahoma)Matei Calinescu (Indiana University), Yves Chevrel (University of Paris-Sorbonne)

Erika Fischer-Lichte (Free University Berlin), Armin Paul Frank (University of Göttingen)Gerald Gillespie (Stanford University), Hendrik van Gorp (Catholic University of Louvain)

Thomas M. Greene (Yale University), Claudio Guillén (Harvard University)Walter Haug (University of Tübingen), Linda Hutcheon (University of Toronto)

Elrud Ibsch (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), Jørgen Dines Johansen (University of Odense)Donald Maddox (University of Connecticut), Virgil Nemoianu (Catholic University of America)

John Neubauer (University of Amsterdam), Stephen G. Nichols (University of Pennsylvania)Willie van Peer (University of Munich), Roland Posner (Technical University of Berlin)

Bernhard F. Scholz (Groningen University), Maria-Alzira Seixo (University of Lisbon)Mario J. Valdés (University of Toronto)

Inquiries and submissions should be addressed to:

The editors, Utrecht Publications in General and Comparative LiteratureVakgroep Literatuurwetenschap, Utrecht UniversityMuntstraat 4, 3512 EV UTRECHT, The Netherlands

Volume 34

Jèmeljan Hakemulder

The Moral Laboratory

Experiments examining the effects of reading literature

on social perception and moral self-concept


4/217

THE MORALLABORATORY

EXPERIMENTS EXAMINING THE EFFECTSOF READING LITERATURE ON SOCIAL

PERCEPTION AND MORAL SELF-CONCEPT

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANYAMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

JÈMELJAN HAKEMULDERUtrecht University


5/217

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of Ameri-can National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper forPrinted Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

8 TM

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hakemulder, Jèmeljan, 1966-The moral laboratory : experiments examining the effects of reading literature on social

perception and moral self-concept / Jèmeljan Hakemulder.p. cm. -- (Utrecht publications in general and comparative literature, ISSN 0167-8175

; v. 34)Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.

1. Literature and morals. 2. Literature and society. 3. Books and reading. I. Title. II. Series.PN49.H319 2000801’.3--dc21 00-027895ISBN 90 272 2223 1 (Eur.) / 1 55619 680 6 (US) (Hb; alk. paper) CIP

© 2000 – John Benjamins B.V.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any othermeans, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

Cover illustration Ilja Bos


6/217

For Roel


7/217


8/217

Contents

CHAPTER 1. APOLOGIES 11.1 Taking position 11.2 What effects are we talking about? 31.3 Narrativity 5

1.3.1 Models for imitation 51.3.2 Stories as teaching instruments 7

1.4 Truth and fiction 81.4.1 Powerful misrepresentations 81.4.2 Truth beyond facts 10

1.5 Emotional intelligence 11

1.5.1 A library of human psyche 111.5.2 Complexity of characterization 14

1.6 Appeal to emotions 161.6.1 Composed readers through catharsis 161.6.2 Experimenting with roles 171.6.3 Rhetoric and persuasion 18

1.7 A challenge to ethical reflection 201.7.1 Life’s problems and social criticism 20

1.7.2 Reconsider and look again 22Notes 27

CHAPTER 2. CHANGING READERS 292.1 Introduction 29

2.1.1 Correlations 292.1.2 Qualitative approaches 30

2.2 Experimental research 32

2.2.1 Criteria for evaluation 332.2.2 Effects of literature per se 37


9/217

Table of contentsviii

2.3 Range of the claims: internalization 382.3.1 Stability of the effects 39

2.3.2 Emotional and behavioral changes 412.3.3 Social desirability 43

2.4 Range of the claims: generalizability 452.4.1 Necessity of postprocessing 452.4.2 Effective texts 462.4.3 Age and gender differences 482.4.4 Summary 48

2.5 Fitting research findings to theorists’ constructs 49

2.5.1 Pre-ethical effects 502.5.2 Ethical effects 532.5.3 Moral effects 542.5.4 Summary 56

Notes 59

CHAPTER 3. A BLUEPRINT FOR MORAL LABORATORIES 613.1 Introduction 61

3.2 Taking a character’s role 623.2.1 Construction of causal coherence 623.2.2 Understanding a character’s emotions 653.2.3 Empathic response: role-taking 68

3.3 Effects on norms and values 763.3.1 Introduction 763.3.2 Three mechanisms 78

3.4 Effects on self-concepts 843.4.1 Introduction 843.4.2 Definition of self-concept 843.4.3 Implications of self-concept change 88

3.5 Five assumptions left 94Notes 95

CHAPTER 4. UNDERSTANDING OTHERS 974.1 Introduction 974.2 What do we need stories for? 99

4.2.1 Study one 994.2.2 Study two 104


10/217

Table of contents ix

4.3 Study three: the effects of role-taking 1084.4 Conclusion 112

Notes 114

CHAPTER 5. MORAL SELF-KNOWLEDGE 1175.1 Introduction 1175.2 Text manipulation 121

5.2.1 Focalization 1225.2.2 Story outcome 124

5.3 Method 125

5.4 Results 1295.4.1 Character morality 1295.4.2 Moral self-concept 1315.4.3 Empathic ability 140

5.5 Discussion 142Notes 144

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 147

6.1 Adequacy in ethical reflection 1476.2 Summary 1496.3 Implications for society 158

6.3.1 Moral edification 1586.3.2 Valuable reading 161

6.4 Future research 163

Appendix 169

References 183Index of names 197

Index of terms 203


11/217


12/217

Chapter 1

Apologies

Though not useful, it may be said it [poetry] is highly ornamental, and

deserves to be cultivated for the pleasure it yields. Even if this be granted, itdoes not follow that a writer of poetry in the present state of society is not awaster of his own time, and a robber of that of others (…). In whatever degreepoetry is cultivated, it must necessarily be to the neglect of some branch of useful study: and it is a lamentable spectacle to see minds, capable of betterthings, running to seed in the specious indolence of these empty aimlessmockeries of intellectual exertion. Thomas Peacock1

1.1 Taking position

Beliefs about the ethical effects of reading literature have been quite persis-tent. Presumably since the moment ‘literature’ emerged, people have specu-lated about what these effects are, whether they could justify its existence, orreading or writing literature, or whether they would necessitate censorship.Theories of literature have frequently included assumptions about its contribu-tion to moral education, as well as its ability to corrupt. This book ventures toexamine such assumptions.

We should perhaps consider first whether such a project is worthwhile,since several positions question its merits. One is that examining the ethicaleffects of literature may be a waste of time. To some people it seems obviousthat reading literary texts can change our norms, values, and behavior. Whyhammer on an open door? Another, opposing, position is the assumption thatit is impossible to put one’s finger on the effects of literature. A study like thepresent one, therefore, would be futile. People who take this view argue thatliterature is about much deeper stuff than morality. They see its quintessence

as elusive; therefore it is pointless to say anything about those moral effects,let alone to examine them (cf. Rhees 1949). A related position is that literature


13/217

The Moral Laboratory2

should not have anything to do with ethics. It is not necessarily denied thatreading may affect our norms and values, but opening the door to ethics would

be harmful. First, it tarnishes the aesthetic quality of literature (cf. Bohrer1978). On top of being distasteful, allowing ethics to enter the domain of aesthetics poses the threat of censorship. Therefore, it seems much better tokeep literature aloof from the domain of ethics.

On the other hand, some maintain that ethics should be an integral part of the way we deal with literature. In summing up his Protocols of Reading,Scholes (1989) proposes that a response to literature remains incomplete untilthe texts are absorbed and transformed in the thoughts and actions of the

reader. “I believe that reading can, and should answer to social and ethicalconcerns,” Scholes writes (page x).

A position deviating from the previous ones is the view that readingliterature has no significant or lasting influence. Stolnitz (1991) and De Jongh(1993) argue that the arts do not elevate human beings in a moral sense; norare they able to change their character. Otherwise, the world would have beena better, more beautiful place, they argue.

Clearly there is some unresolved disagreement here. The aim of this book

is to clarify the discussion. To do this, we should note that there are twodistinct dimensions to the dispute. The first relates to claims about reality:reading literature does, or does not have ethical effects. The second onepertains to value judgment: a comprehensive understanding of literatureshould , or should not include ethical aspects. These two topics require twodistinct approaches. Empirical research methods are appropriate for measur-ing the effects of reading texts, while conceptual analysis and logical critiqueare better suited to clarify the question of norms. I shall primarily be con-cerned with the former. In my view, the empirical question precedes thenormative one. For example, discussions about whether we should considerethical effects in aesthetic judgment may become more informed when weknow what effects, if any, reading literature has.

Still, we should pause, and ponder whether an investigation of literature’sethical effects is not a waste of time. I think, however, that we have goodreason to believe such an investigation to be worthwhile, namely the fact thatthe claims contradict each other. In such cases it seems a good idea to look atthe evidence. However plausible some ideas about the effects of our reading

may be, we should always keep in mind that our intuitions may be wrong.Consider also the potential advantages of finding out that literature has


14/217

Apologies 3

neither a beneficial, nor a damaging influence. Such demystification couldrelieve literary studies of a burdensome moralism and would allow us to

concentrate fully on aesthetic matters. Critics would no longer have to worryabout the effect of, for instance, unfavorable portrayals of women, Jews, blackpeople, or homosexuals. Dictators could rest at ease, and dismiss their censors.And people concerned with moral education would be freed of illusionsregarding the use of literature for their purposes. Also, literary scholars coulddump their endless speculations on literature’s ethical influence on personalityand society. In short, sorting out the issue might save people a lot of time.

It could also lead to a reconsideration of our theories of literature. In this

chapter I shall take a close look at these theories. I will try to specify theassumptions about the effects of reading literature, which will guide me in myexploration of the evidence in the next chapters. Furthermore, I will try tomake clear why I think that the present project concerns the foundations of ourunderstanding of literature. As we will see, definitions of literature ofteninclude assumptions about its effects. Some of them are handed down to usthrough the ancient genre of apologies written by dedicated defenders of literature (e.g., Sir Philip Sidney’s An Apology for Poetry and Shelley’s

Defence of Poetry).2

Ancient does not mean antiquated: some of the oldarguments in favor of literature still play a role in present-day debates aboutliterature’s relation to ethics. Another source of ideas about beneficial effectsof reading is the anxiety about alleged effects of other forms of entertainment,like popular fiction and television. Several of the assumptions I will discussfind their origins in definitions proposed by literary scholars (e.g., Shklovsky).Others are rooted in statements by literary authors, and are to be found inessays, critiques, or prefaces to their own work (e.g., Musil, Zola). I intend toargue that these assertions are in one way or another linked to ethical effects.As will become clear, this will add many more decisive ‘apologies’ for thepresent undertaking to the ones already mentioned.

1.2 What effects are we talking about?

To make this point clear, let me first sharpen the terminology. Ethics generallyrefers to an inquiry into our actions from the viewpoint of norms and values,

good and evil, responsibility and choice.3 Morals refer to the whole of behav-ioral norms accepted in a given community. What then are ethical effects? I


15/217


propose to reserve this term for the enhancement of ethical reflection. When weread a philosophical essay on the quality of life this presumably stimulates our

reflections on the subject. Similarly, a narrative text dealing with some ethicalissue may enhance readers’ ethical deliberations. Of course, joining the authorof a text in his or her reflections does not necessarily include a conversion to theperceived moral of the story. Therefore I will reserve the term moral effects forthe actual persuasion in favor of some moral position. Readers of Shakespeare’sOthello may become convinced that jealousy is a vice, because the playcompellingly shows how it destroys trust, and thus the foundation of compan-ionship. These readers, then, have been subject to moral effects.

As we shall see, moral and ethical effects do not cover the total range of effects attributed to reading literature. Several claims pertain to the enhance-ment of abilities which are likely to help us in making ethical inquiries. TheseI will call pre-ethical effects.4 Sometimes we are confronted with a moralconflict between two or more parties. A choice forces itself upon us while weare uncertain as to which norm is applicable. Such situations require particularabilities, for instance, being able to understand the conflicting demands, beingable to determine our own norms and values, and predicting the consequences

of either option of the dilemma. Some theorists assume that reading literatureenhances such abilities. DePaul (1993), for example, points out that compre-hension of a literary narrative compels readers to make inferences, so as tounderstand the emotions and motivations of the characters. Frequently beinginvolved in making such psychological inferences, readers may develop acapacity for making these deductions. This is neither a moral, nor an ethicaleffect, although it seems plausible that it increases the likelihood of sucheffects. Therefore, it is pre-ethical.

Talking about pre-ethical, ethical and moral effects of reading literaturealso requires a specification of the term ‘literature.’ This is important, becauseit is not always clear what kind of texts the theories refer to. For instance,hardly any contemporary theory is concerned with the effects of readingpoetry. Most of the assumptions refer to narratives (or stories); in some casestheir literary quality is emphasized, in others not. Literary narratives, asunderstood in the present study, belong to the diffuse set of texts qualified asliterature in literary criticism and general usage. Later, in Chapters 2 and 3 Iwill discuss empirical evidence for the alleged effects of reading literature. In

some parts of the research that I will refer to, it remains unclear precisely whattexts have been used. Often the texts that were used were not appended, and if


16/217

Apologies 5

they were, it is not always easy to determine whether the experimentersconsidered them to be literary. Sometimes the materials are simple narratives

written by the experimenters themselves, without any literary pretension. Toavoid confusion I will, whenever relevant, try to explicitly indicate whetherthe theories and research under discussion pertain to literary narratives, orrather to narratives in general.

In Sections 1.3 to 1.7 I will show that most of our theories of literatureimply ethical and moral effects or a training of pre-ethical abilities. In eachsection I will specify what the effects are and how they are assumed to comeabout. The purpose of this is not to construe a coherent theory, but to create a

point of departure for Chapter 2. There I will examine whether there is anyevidence to support the assumptions put forward in the present chapter. First Iwill discuss what effects have been associated with narrative form (Sec-tion 1.3). In Section 1.4 (Truth and Fiction) and 1.5 ( Emotional Intelligence) Iwill focus on effects linked to contents. The last two Sections, 1.6 ( Appeal to

Emotions) and 1.7 ( A Challenge to Ethical Reflection), deal with emotionaland cognitive processing of narratives.

1.3 Narrativity

1.3.1 Models for imitation

Novels and short stories that form the bulk of published literature today arenarratives. It is in particular the narrative nature of these texts that has beenassociated with specific effects. Stories are an important instrument for social-ization. Growing up in a community involves becoming familiar with itsbehavioral norms. Narratives often embody such norms (e.g., Miller & Moore1989; M.H. Brown 1985; Hafferty 1988). Children encountering a new andconfusing situation may find help in the stories their parents tell about the timethey themselves were young. Newcomers to a working environment mayquickly become aware of the cultural code of the company, simply by listen-ing to the stories their colleagues tell. There are also less obvious ways inwhich socialization through stories may take place. As Van Asperen (1994)argues, the stories we tell each other in our daily conversations function as a

means to explore common ground. The way we narrate our experiencesreveals a lot about what we think is important. Such stories are implicitly


17/217


about who we are, or what we do not want to be. The tacit moral nature of thestories we tell each other is also uncovered by the fact that some occurrences

are narrated, while others are not. We select which events are worth telling.Some propose that the criterion for ‘reportability’ is principally a moral one(Rigney 1991). What we consider worth telling a story about are typicallyevents in which human values are at stake.

Often, however, people around us cannot tell the stories we need to hear.They do not have the necessary experience, or they are less competent narrators.In such cases fiction by ‘professional’ narrators may take over. Consider, forinstance, the case of Emma Bovary. In his novel, Madame Bovary, Flaubert

describes how Emma was put into a convent when she was thirteen. Growingup among nuns, she relied on popular romances for her information about theoutside world. Unfortunately, these proved to be not the most trustworthysources. High expectations were raised by fictional worlds filled by “love,lovers, loving, martyred maidens swooning in secluded lodges, postilions slainevery other mile, horses ridden to death on every page, dark forests, achinghearts, promising, sobbing, kisses and tears, little boats by moonlight, nightin-gales in the grove, gentlemen brave as lions, tender as lambs, virtuous as a

dream, always well dressed, and weeping pints” (28). After marrying Charles,a provincial doctor, life turns out to be rather less thrilling. Frustrations anddepressions follow. However, Emma does not give in easily. The pursuit of herfictionally inflicted desires eventually lead her into adultery. Having Rodolphefor a lover, she thought she would finally enter “…something marvellous whereeverything would be passion, ecstasy, (…) She summoned the heroines from thebooks she had read, and the lyric host of these unchaste women began theirchorus in her memory, sister-voices, enticing her. She merged into her ownimaginings, playing a real part, realizing the long dream of her youth, seeingherself as one of those great lovers she had so long envied” (131). Again herhopes are set too high. Disappointingly, Rodolphe is not prepared to take up hispistols to duel with Charles Bovary. Neither is he prepared to carry Emma off.

The effect narrative fiction had on Emma illustrates how our experiencesare filtered through “already seen images,” as Eco (1986) suggests. Booth(1988) adds that ‘real life’ is lived in images derived in part from stories. As heputs it, “though usually our imitations are not highly dramatic, especially oncewe pass adolescence, everyone who reads knows that whether or not we

should imitate narrative heroes and heroines, we in fact do” (229).Throughout this chapter I will try to capture such assumptions in explic-


18/217

Apologies 7

itly formulated hypotheses, each of which will be held against the light of available empirical research in Chapter 2. At this point, we can ascertain our

first hypothesis.

Narratives affect readers’ beliefs or expectations about their lives. Thisincludes consequences for their behavioral norms, e.g., cultural or socialcodes (Hypothesis M1).5

In my terms this is a moral effect. The suggestion is that reading narrativesinfluences readers’ morals, that is, their belief about what are right, proper oracceptable ways of behaving.

1.3.2 Stories as teaching instruments

Narratives are considered to have more influence on beliefs than other formsof discourse. Following Horace’s dictum of combining the utilitarian withpleasure (“qui miscuit utile dulci”), many educators believe that narratives canbe more effective instruments in teaching moral lessons than philosophicaltreatises. For centuries, authors of children’s literature, educators, preachersand probably many parents have assumed that Horace was right. Since Antiq-

uity stories about heroes, explorers, and inventors were supposed to be a wayto teach the virtues these characters represented (Dasberg 1994). Eighteenth-century Enlightenment gave children books filled to the brim with knowledge.Up until recently, poetic justice, that is, the virtuous and the base charactersboth getting what they deserve, has been a dominant formula in writing thesenarratives. In a more recent call for the use of narratives in education, Egan(1988) argues that stories are the most effective didactic instruments toorganize events and facts in a way that places them in a meaningful relation

(see also Coles 1989). Horace’s principle has also been considered to apply togrown-ups. With the rise of the novel in the eighteenth century, severalapologists of literature gratefully made use of this argument (Van den Berg1994). Also, in religious education or conversion, stories are assumed to bemore persuasive than abstract dogmas. The underlying concept can be sum-marized as follows.

A narrative presentation is more persuasive than a non-narrative one (Hypo-thesis M2).

Concluding this section, it seems clear that narrativity gives rise to certainexpectations about the effects of reading. Narrative representations are sup-


19/217


posed to affect our norms, desires and expectations (as it did in Emma’s case).Also, narratives are thought to have stronger effects on our beliefs than non-

narratives. Considering the scope of the alleged effects I discussed, it will beinteresting to see whether they were ever put to the test.

1.4 Truth and fiction

1.4.1 Powerful misrepresentations

Some assume that the effects of narratives I discussed in the previous sectionare not necessarily impaired by the fictionality of its contents. On the contrary.For example, Downs (1977) claims that the impact of Kemble’s Journal of a

Residence on a Georgian Plantation, as compared to that of Stowe’s UncleTom’s Cabin, was much less influential, because the latter “wrapped its morallesson up in an exciting story” (82). But as our brief excursion into Flaubert’snovel already showed, fiction may present an unreliable source of informa-tion. Therefore, hypotheses M1 and M2 left undecided whether reading narra-

tives enhances correct beliefs. Plato may have been the first to warn againstthe fact that literary narratives are fictional, that is, untrue.6 What are theethical implications of supposing, as Plato does, that literature offers thereader a mere semblance of the world as we perceive it, which in turn is to beconsidered as a mere guise of the Realm of Ideas? According to Plato,literature blurs the distinctions between truth and untruth. It also aims at thereaders’ most vulnerable and lowest faculties, that is to say, their emotions.This extremely dangerous combination enhances irresponsibility, reasonenough for Plato to conclude there should be no place for literature in hisutopian state.

The idea that a biased fictional representation of the world may distort ourperception seems widely accepted, though with few references to Plato. If fiction does shape our perception, there are far-reaching consequences to beconsidered. For one, should we not watch closely over the things childrenread? Had the nuns kept Emma from reading trash romances, a tragedy couldhave been averted. The idea that fiction may breed misconceptions has fre-quently put researchers to hard work, analyzing the content of stories in teen-

age magazines, television advertisements, soap operas, popular romances, etc.(e.g., Peirce 1993; Rajecki et al. 1994; Chamove & Mullins 1992). Suspected


20/217

Apologies 9

biases in, for example, children’s literature seem sufficient ground to scruti-nize how sex roles are represented, or how cultural minorities are portrayed.

This may be an important matter, because of the supposed socializing influ-ence of reading.

A similarly firm belief in the effects of narrative fiction can be detected inwhat is known as the canon debate. Some suggest that the highly acclaimedworks of literature are used as an instrument of suppression (e.g., HerrnsteinSmith 1988). It is assumed that things which are not represented in the storieswe read do not become part of our beliefs about the world. Failing to putintelligent, accomplished women on the stage, canonized authors make us

think these women do not exist, it is believed.A related argument is the one against censorship. It may be that leaders of

totalitarian regimes worry little about the possibility that fiction does notrepresent Plato’s World of Ideas properly. Steiner (1989) supposes theiruneasiness is caused by literature’s power to stimulate readers’ fantasy. Thisfantasy, he says, can be subversive. The aesthetic is inherently critical, for ittells the reader that things could have been different from what they are.Whether this is what actually vexes censors remains to be seen. Some cases

suggest the opposite, namely that a too close resemblance between fiction andreality is considered utterly rebellious. A case in point is the staging of HenrikIbsen’s An Enemy of the People in China. In the play, Stockmann, a publichealth inspector, discovers that the allegedly curative baths of his hometownare contaminated. As Stockmann wants to make his findings known, themayor stops publication and prevents him from speaking at a public meeting.Next, the business leader of the baths, fearing the discovery may daunttourists, leads a mob in denouncing the doctor as an enemy of the people.Dealing with corruption, inhibition of freedom of speech, and the use of demagogy against a ‘dissident,’ the play has been perceived as having abearing on situations in China. For instance, the manipulation of the masses inthe persecution of Stockmann seems dangerously close to the suppression of ‘counter-revolutionaries’ during the Cultural Revolution.7 Such similaritymay well be among the reasons why the production of the play has frequentlybeen impeded by the Chinese authorities. Whether it is a resemblance toreality or a divergence from it which actually breeds censorship, clearly somestrong effects are expected.

This does not mean, however, that the effects do occur. It may very wellbe that censors are mistaken about what literature may do to us. One reason to


21/217


suppose so, is that, judging by some of the antics of censorship, it seems not toattract an intelligent type of person. Rushdie (1991) recalls Pakistan’s censors

pestering him when he tried to stage Albee’s The Zoo Story. Using the word‘pork,’ for example, was prohibited, irrespective of its context, which madethat part of the play, as Rushdie saw it, “superb anti-pork propaganda” (38).

Since we have not seen any conclusive arguments to accept that thefictional content of narratives can go together with effects proposed in Hy-potheses M1 and M2, we will examine in Chapter 2 whether there is anyempirical support for the following assertion.

The fictionality of narratives does not impair its effects on readers’ beliefs and

behavioral norms (Hypothesis M3; compare Hypothesis M1).

1.4.2 Truth beyond facts

In one sense the effects of reading fictional stories on beliefs may be adistortion of reality. However, a fundamental assumption underlying Westernliterature concerns the special status of its truth content. As part of our literarysocialization we come to believe that literary representation (or mimesis)

imparts more profound or universal insight in reality than, for instance,historical monographs, newspaper reports or courtroom proceedings (cf.Aristotle’s Poetics). Authors of the latter are merely preoccupied with record-ing particularities, like what exactly Pericles said to the Athenian assembly.Poets, on the other hand, are involved with general truth, describing what acharacter like Odysseus may have said or done. Therefore, literature is consid-ered to carry deeper philosophical implications.8

The expectation that the truth content of literature goes beyond mere facts

has given rise to certain opinions about the effects of reading, for instance thatliterary texts affect readers’ ideas about probability. To explain this, let mefirst exemplify some of the consequences of Aristotelian poetics. FollowingAristotle, Gardner (1978) proposes that authors let the succession of eventsthey describe be determined by laws of probability. Writers wonder con-stantly, he says, what seems likely to happen next, given the situation theircharacter is in, and given the character’s virtues, vices, and goals. Sometimesthey do not even know themselves where the events will take the story.“Throughout the entire chain of causally related events, the writer asks him-self, would a really cause b and not c, etc. and he creates what seems, at leastby the test of his own imagination and experience of the world, an inevitable


22/217

Apologies 11

development of story” (109–110). According to Gardner, this is how moralfiction distinguishes itself from moralistic fiction. The latter is written to

communicate a doctrine. In this case writers know before they start what it isthat they mean to say. They do not allow their mind to be changed by theprocess of telling the story. On the other hand, “true moral fiction is alaboratory experiment, too difficult and dangerous to try in the world but safeand important in the mirror image of reality in the writer’s mind. Only amadman would murder a sharp old pawn brokeress to test the theory of thesuperman; but Dostoevsky can without harm send his imaginary Raskolnikovinto just that experiment in a thoroughly accurate but imaginary St. Peters-

burg” (115–116). The implied assumption here is that the significance of literature lies in the fact that the observer of the laboratory experiment (i.e., thereader) learns from its results. Thus, the probability criterion for the contentsof narrative fiction leads to a first hypothesis about pre-ethical effects:

A sequence of events presented in a story affects readers’ beliefs aboutcausality: “action a leads to consequence b” (Hypothesis PE1).

Gardner’s poetics goes back to the concept of literature as a moral laboratory.The term is Musil’s, but the concept was proposed earlier by Zola in his essay

Le Roman expérimental (1880). The alleged effect is pre-ethical. As mostethicists would agree, knowledge of the consequences of behavior is a prereq-uisite to all ethical inquiries. The more we know about the probable effects of our actions, the more adequately can we weigh our moral decisions.

1.5 Emotional intelligence

1.5.1 A library of human psyche

Reading literature is often believed to affect readers’ empathic ability, that is,their ability to form an impression of another person’s thoughts and emotions.In daily life it is often hard to obtain reliable information about someone’smotives and feelings. Usually, we can only guess what his or her true motivesare. In many literary works, we get a unique opportunity to study motivationsof people ‘from within.’ For example, while reading Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina,

we are allowed to look straight into Anna’s heart. We directly perceive whatmoves her:


23/217


Through Anna had obstinately and with exasperation contradicted Vronskywhen he told her her position was impossible and tried to convince her to tell

everything to her husband, at the bottom of her heart she regarded her ownposition as false and dishonorable, and she longed with her whole soul tochange it. On the way home from the races she had told her husband the truthin a moment of excitement, and in spite of the agony she had suffered in doingso, she was glad of it. After her husband had left her, she told herself that shewas glad. Now everything was out in the open, and at least there would be nomore lying and deception. It seemed to her beyond doubt that her position wasnow made clear forever. It might be bad, this new position, but it would beclear; there would be no indefiniteness or falsehood about it. The pain she hadcaused herself and her husband in uttering those words would be rewarded

now by everything being made clear, she thought. (304)While we may believe that Anna’s confession is not entirely in her owninterest, the text makes us understand what caused her to do so. It may enrichour imagination about what moves a person in a situation like Anna’s. She wasanxious to relieve her mental dissonance, without having a carefully calcu-lated plan. Instead of assuming clear-cut mechanical laws of human motiva-tion, we may come to realize the complexity and unpredictability of life.

As we read on, we learn about the mental states Anna goes through. First

she tells herself that she is glad she has confessed. From now on she will befree from lies and deceit. The inevitable pain she has caused Karenin was asacrifice well-worth. But the next morning she feels regret and is astonishedshe could have acted the way she did. Moreover, she wonders why she did nottell Vronsky she had confessed to her husband:

And in answer to this question a burning blush of shame spread over her face.She knew what had kept her from it, she knew that she had been ashamed. Herposition, which had seemed to her clear the night before, suddenly struck hernow as not only not simple but as absolutely hopeless. She felt terrified at thedisgrace, of which she had never thought before. When she thought of whather husband would do, the most terrible ideas came to her mind. She had avision of being turned out of the house, of her shame being proclaimed to thewhole world. She asked herself where she could go when she was turned outof the house, and she could not find an answer. (305)

Anna’s initial clarification, and her readiness to meet the consequences havechanged to a fundamental uncertainty about her future. While she had imag-ined that her step would open the way to change her strained circumstances,

she had not really felt her way into all the possible scenarios her confessioncould generate.


24/217

Apologies 13

Palmer (1992) elaborates on the idea that reading texts like Tolstoy’snovel may enhance our understanding of fellow human beings. He suggests

that identification with a character results in a special form of knowledge,which he calls ‘knowledge by acquaintance what an experience is like.’ In thecase of Anna Karenina, most readers will be strongly involved with her fate,and will therefore know, without having been in a similar situation them-selves, what it must be like to be in her position. In acquainting ourselves withAnna’s experience, we learn that one can be so eager to escape a situation thatone does not fully reflect on the possible consequences, consequences whichsuddenly become threatening and destructive as soon as the options become

real. Along similar lines, Doeser (1990) argues that narratives are an ideal wayto communicate such insight into human character (what he calls practicalknowledge), because they combine situation, motivation, action, and its con-sequences. Reading Anna Karenina may sharpen our perception about whysomeone comes to commit adultery, what emotions such a person may have,and what the consequences may be. The proposed consequences of readingnarratives may be summarized as follows.

Reading narratives enhances the ability to make psychological inferences

about the emotions, thoughts, and motives others have in certain situations(Hypothesis PE2).

How are we to understand the relation between this alleged effect and ethics ormorality? Some suggest that the enhancement of insight into human thoughtsand emotions may bridge individual as well as cultural differences. The Dutchnovelist and critic Otten argues that even though the norms and values of thecharacters are not our own, we are able to feel the do’s and don’ts just likethem. “You may become afraid of things the character is afraid of, though you

know you yourself wouldn’t care. In principle the same phenomenon makes itpossible to understand for example how difficult it must be for a fourteen-year-old Moroccan girl to wear a headscarf in school.”9 Similarly, RichardRorty (1989) proposes that reading novels enriches our moral awareness,because during the reading experience we find ourselves in the shoes of a widediversity of people. Thus, we get better and better at understanding moralsituations from different points of view. What good would that do? Somebooks, Rorty argues, help us to become less cruel. These books come in two

categories: (1) those that help us to see the effects of social practices andinstitutions on others (like Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Les Misérables); (2) those


25/217


that help us to see the effects of our private idiosyncrasies on others. Theseworks typically show:

the blindness of a certain kind of person to the pain of another kind of person.By identification with Mr. Causaubon in Middlemarch or with Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House, for example, we may come to notice what we ourselves havebeen doing. In particular, such books show how our attempts at autonomy,our private obsessions with the achievement of a certain sort of perfection,may make us oblivious to the pain and humiliation we are causing. They arethe books which dramatize the conflict between duties to self and duties toothers. (141)

It seems obvious that these effects yield important benefits to ethical reflec-tion. Since they may enhance the quality of ethical reflection, but are notethical themselves, I call them pre-ethical. As Rorty makes clear, we needthese pre-ethical abilities to make morally reflected choices for ourselves.Furthermore, we need them to form our judgment about the behavior of others. Before passing judgment, we may want to know something about theactors’ motives, as well as to take the consequences of their actions intoconsideration. Indeed, as Swap (1991) shows, when we form our judgmentabout someone’s behavior, we do in fact make attributions about both motiva-

tion and consequences. Furthermore, in several measures of moral develop-ment, scores largely depend on subjects’ ability to do so (Piaget 1932;Kohlberg 1969). These tests typically consist of a story describing eventswhich lead to a moral dilemma. To understand that it is a dilemma subjectshave to make inferences about the protagonists’ emotions and intentions.Furthermore, they have to be able to imagine the possible consequences of choosing either the one or the other way out of the dilemma. If readingnarratives enhances insight into human character, this would indirectly im-

prove the quality of our ethical inquiries, at least on measures used in thesocial sciences. Considering the possible refinement of ethical reflection, itseems we have found another strong argument to investigate whether litera-ture actually increases knowledge of the human psyche.

1.5.2 Complexity of characterization

It could be countered that other (non-literary) discourse types may have

similar beneficial effects. Soap operas might equally contribute to insight intohuman character. One property which distinguishes literary narratives fromother narrative discourses, however, is its complexity. What does this mean?


26/217

Apologies 15

Generally, it is supposed that literary texts represent and presumably producemore complex emotional experiences than, for example, popular fiction does.

Making sense of the emotions of characters in a popular romance, storyusually does not demand much reflection or imagination. But literary charac-ters like Anna Karenina are not so one-dimensional. Their personalities arelike full-blown human beings; puzzling and complex, rather than rudimentaryand stereotypical.

This quality of literature may boost some of the effects of narratives Ihave discussed before. Some argue that a diet of texts that offer oversimplifiedand shallow prototypes of emotional life may hamper the development of

readers’ imagination about or their view of other people’s emotions, that theymay even impair the development of their own emotions (DePaul 1993;Bloom 1987; Van Peer 1986b). In contrast, the relatively high psychologicalcomplexity of literary characters may delay response, and require a higherdegree of concentration. In turn, this may stimulate readers to make moreperceptive inferences about someone’s intentions and emotions. If we con-sider going through such processes to be some kind of training, we may expectthem to lead to a more adequate perception of others’ emotions in everyday

situations, or at least a more imaginative expectation about other people’sinner-lives. In Chapter 2 I will examine whether there is any empirical supportfor the following assertion:

The complexity of literary characters helps readers to have more sophisticatedideas about others’ emotions and motives than stereotyped characters inpopular fiction, (Hypothesis PE3).

It is in this sense that we have to understand Nussbaum’s (1990) claim thatliterature reveals the complexity of making moral decisions. Literary novels,

she argues, offer detailed descriptions of concrete situations involving moralproblems. Their sheer length also allows the development of a historicaldimension. This should make the reader aware that ethical decisions are notsimply a matter of applying the appropriate moral rules to a particular problem.The usefulness of Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery” may turn outto be of limited value when we have to deal with a concrete case like AnnaKarenina’s. The way popular culture deals with such issues is hardly induciveto sophisticated moral discrimination. In addition to previous hypotheses about

psychological insight (PE1 and PE2), it is therefore expected that:The attention given to the genesis and development of moral problems inliterary texts raises our awareness of the complexity of ethical problems(Hypothesis PE4).


27/217


Up until now, I have focused on aspects of contents. Next I will pay attentionto effects that are associated with literary reading processes. First I will

specify the effects expected from readers’ emotional involvement.

1.6 Appeal to emotions

1.6.1 Composed readers through catharsis

It is commonly accepted that reading literary texts may generate emotions.

Some suppose this aspect of literature to induce effects which are, in myterms, pre-ethical. Their claims may be without foundation, but let us first seewhat they are.

To start with, an emotional reading experience is thought to producecatharsis, a process in which emotional tensions are diminished by an intensi-fication.10 The Aristotelian concept is somewhat ambiguous and has led toseveral interpretations, the most influential one being Breuer and Freud’smethod of ‘psycho-catharsis.’ In this therapy, patients are brought in a state of

light hypnosis. Repressed events in the patient’s past are subsequently actual-ized. The patient is thus made aware of past traumas. The emotions generatedby this awareness lead to relief.

The temporal increase of burdensome emotions may also be attained byacting them out in therapeutic ‘as if’ situations. Emotional reading experi-ences are believed to have similar effects. In a practice known as bibliotherapypatients read a story about a character whose experiences resemble the trau-matic events in the patients’ past (see Fuhriman et al. 1989). Identificationmay be a kind of therapeutic ‘as if’ situation, in other words, an imaginary roleplay. In this way patients supposedly come to recognize their repressedemotions, and thus make the first step in learning to deal with them.

According to Beardsley (1958), catharsis is not only recommendable forpsychiatric patients. Often in daily life, he argues, we build up a certainamount of frustration and irritation. This can rise to such an extent that it canseriously hamper our social, creative, and economic performance. Readingliterature may reduce our destructive psychological impulses, Beardsley ar-gues. This effect, he says, has an important advantage. While reading, we go

through strong emotions of moral indignation or hate without harming anyonein the process. Also, in sublimating destructive feelings and emotions, reading


28/217

Apologies 17

may enhance our “capacity of outgoing and affectionate relations, reduce theamount of irrational emotional outbursts, lessen prejudices and lasting resent-

ments, make us more tolerant and forgiving” (560). The cathartic effect of literature may even have implications exceeding the relevance for our per-sonal lives. As Bertrand Russell said in his Nobel Prize speech, reading maysatisfy our love for excitement, and avoid that this yearning leads to socialunrest and war.11

Cathartic effects are an example of a pre-ethical effect. Relief of emo-tional tension is neither moral nor ethical in itself. But, as has been argued, itmay affect our behavior, and set our frame of mind to make more well-

considered judgments and thus contribute to ethical reflection or moral action.Participating in an imaginary role-play may produce an awareness of re-pressed emotions, thus enabling more reasonable judgment (Hypothesis PE5).

1.6.2 Experimenting with roles

Besides cathartic effects, participation in imaginary role play is assumed tocontribute to character formation, in that it gives readers a chance to experi-

ment with roles that are not theirs (yet). Reading involves temporarily sharingthe same desires and anxieties characters have, Booth (1988) proposes. Theplot of most narratives is set into motion by desires, by goals characters wantto reach, or by a task they have to accomplish (see Bremond 1966). Readers’arousal may be explained by the adoption of a character’s perspective. Theymay temporarily feel, for instance, the same fear a fictional murderer mayhave of being caught. Booth (1988) argues that having these feelings maycontribute to character formation. According to him, fiction offers a multitude

of opportunities to experiment with roles and values. When we have read 300pages of a novel and have come to know a character like Anna Karenina prettywell, we may feel the same desires and fears she has. The reading experienceenlarges, what Booth calls, our ‘imaginative diet.’ In other words, readingstimulates our imagination about who we are and what we may be. The resultof such an experiment with roles is that we become aware of the attraction of being like the characters. Booth recalls from his own experience of readingUlysses “a sense of envy and awe — not of Joyce but of Stephen. If only myown stream of consciousness could flow at that high philosophical level, whata bright young man I would be! And I can remember (…) mumbling thatmouth-filler: ‘ineluctable modality of the visible’. Thus in my emulation I was


29/217


moved, in however slight a degree, toward the character of a philosophicalman.” (274) That was Booth as a young man; now he is a professor at the

University of Chicago.The ‘experiment’ with roles may also work in the opposite direction. We

may also become aware of what we do not want to be like, as Scholes (1989)experienced while he read George Eliot’s Middlemarch. He relates how thiscaused an ethical turn in his life: “I found myself far too closely mirrored in thecharacter of Fred Vincy, who is nicely summed up by the narrator as one of those ‘young gentlemen whose consciousness is chiefly made up of their ownwishes’” (139).

Whether Booth became a professor thanks to Ulysses, or whether Scholesbecame a better man because of Middlemarch is hard to say. As Booth pointsout himself, what we read does not necessarily determine what we are. It mayalso be the other way round. Nineteen-year-olds who want to read Ulysses,may already have something of a philosopher in them. Moreover, even honestand earnest attempts to reconstruct how we became what we are, may containinaccuracies. In Chapter 2 I will hold the following hypothesis against thelight of available empirical evidence.

Reading narratives is a thought-experiment. Readers try out certain roles andreflect on the consequences of these roles (Hypothesis E1).

So, reading Ulysses helps readers to clarify whether and why they would valueintellect over other values, and their reflections on their reading of Middle-march makes them realize they do not want to be an egoist like Fred Vincy.The thought-experiment itself is a method of ethical inquiry. Its effects areethical effects of reading literature. But, as these examples already indicate,readers’ ethical reflections can lead to a moral conclusion.

1.6.3 Rhetoric and persuasion

Until now I have discussed the enhancement of emotions through a perceivedresemblance between story events and a reader’s past (e.g., stories mirroringtraumatic experiences). Another element of literature’s appeal to emotions isassumed to come from rhetoric, the art of persuasion. “Rhetorical devices,”Tuve (1947) says, “move a reader’s affections,” but also “affect his judgment;

they move him to feel intensely, to will, to act, to understand, to believe, tochange his mind.”12 Rhetorical schemes and tropes are often assumed to


30/217

Apologies 19

contribute to the persuasive power of Biblical texts, political essays, pam-phlets, courtroom pleas, and advertisements. When this power results in

changing behavioral norms, this is a moral effect.As Booth (1961, 1988) has pointed out, rhetoric is an almost omnipresent

phenomenon in fiction. In fact, handbooks on rhetoric frequently refer to literaryexamples for illustration (from Aristotle’s The Art of Rhetoric to Corbett 1971;see also Van Peer 1994). Most of the rhetorical devices can be found inside aswell as outside literature. Take irony, for instance. An example from an ad fora telephone company: “Sure you could live without the Yellow Pages (orwithout newspapers or automobiles or clocks)”. If such rhetoric works in an ad,

may not the same persuasive effect occur while reading a literary text like thisone: “For Brutus is an honorable man; So are they all, honorable men.”(Shakespeare, Julius Caesar III, ii, 91–92)?13 Mark Antony’s famous speechdoes indeed stir the mob he addresses. While Brutus had been able to assure thePlebeians that the assassination of Caesar was necessary to preserve theRepublic, Antony persuades them to a diametrically different opinion. With thehelp of rhetorical devices, he creates a mood of hostility towards Brutus and theother conspirators. This is a clear case of a moral effect. We see a change of

judgment, from “Live, Brutus, live, live!” (III. ii, 50) and “Let him [Brutus] beCaesar,” (53) to “Revenge! – About! – Seek! – Burn! – Fire! – Kill! – Slay! Letnot a traitor live” (216).

Here we have a fictional audience being swayed by rhetoric. Whathappens to Shakespeare’s readers? It seems unlikely they are also swept intomoral indignation and action. Most readers will realize Brutus and Antony arefictional characters, and that no immediate action on their part is called for. Inaddition, these characters are too ambiguous for such an overt response. Theyare both good and evil. Brutus’ intentions are not all wicked. He seriouslymeans to save his country. Similarly, Antony is not without fault. He stirs anangry mob and starts a devastating civil war, which results in many innocentdeaths. What does seem likely is that some readers will notice a moralambiguity at the heart of the play. The piece may work in such a way thatreaders come to realize the moral importance of avoiding civil disorder andviolence. Julius Caesar seems to show that a political status quo is to bepreferred to the pursuit or control of power, even for apparently just or moralpurposes. Literature may come to function as, what Booth (1988) calls, a

macro-metaphor, in case of Shakespeare’s play, as a macro-metaphor forcertain problems of government. If it is true that, as Booth claims, these


31/217


metaphors can have an ‘awesome’ influence on us, reading Shakespeare maywell affect readers’ behavioral norms concerning politics.

By means of rhetorical devices narratives move readers to accept a perceivedbehavioral norm, or to sense a renewed awareness of it (Hypothesis M4).

A literary text and a political pamphlet are two different things. Unlike themessage of a pamphlet, literary meaning cannot be reduced to a blunt motto.Simplifying Shakespeare to one moral message seems a gross impoverish-ment. Moreover, attempts to do so result in truisms most people will be wellaware of without the help of any literary text. Nevertheless, this does not

refute the claim that part of the reading experiencemay

include a reduction toa motto, as well as a renewed awareness of some principle. Remember that weare not concerned with what readers should , but what they may learn fromliterature.

In this section I have argued that if literature enhances emotions, it mayhave effects besides pure aesthetic delight. Catharsis and its psychologicalcorrelates warrant a serious investigation of their consequences. I have alsoproposed that readers’ identification with characters may lead to an impact ontheir self-concept. An examination of these assertions could have important

social applications and deepen our understanding of literary communication.The effects of rhetoric may also be of interest. Rhetorical devices like meta-phors, irony, and repetition may, or may not have the persuasive effect theyare supposed to have. If they do have such effects, people in the business of persuasion may want to know. It may also be that the rhetorical devices workanywhere except in literature. In that case, it may be interesting to know why.

1.7 A challenge to ethical reflection

1.7.1 Life’s problems and social criticism

The previous section focused on emotional involvement and its alleged ef-fects. I will now consider the implications of cognitive processes. By now itmust be clear that assumptions about pre-ethical and moral effects of readingliterature are deeply rooted in our Western concept of what literature is, but

also that few of these theories are based on empirical evidence. The sameholds for ethical effects. Intuitively it seems plausible that some literary texts


32/217

Apologies 21

stimulate readers to reflect on ethical problems, but what do we know aboutthe place of such reflections in actual reading experiences?

Before answering that question in Chapter 2, let us look at what theclaims are. First I will look at some ideas about effects on personal reflections.Many literary texts are believed to address ethical issues (e.g., Mooij 1987;Gregor & Nicholas 1962; Gardner 1978). This is not to say that they containmoral messages. According to Van Asperen (1994), literature typically dealswith questions regarding the meaning of life, what makes a life worth living,and what does not. Thus, readers may come to reflect on choices and actions,or on qualities like courage, loyalty, compassion, goodness, and reliability.

Participating in the experiences of literary characters, argues Van Asperen,gives us more food for reflection than our own experiences could. “Literatureis, in that sense, a laboratory of human possibilities, and that always impliesmoral possibilities as well” (45). Rorty (1989) and Nussbaum (1991) similarlyargue that literature is closely geared toward ethical problems we meet in dailylife. Literary texts show us ethically relevant details, acknowledging theparticularity of the circumstances, and the ineptness of universal moral laws.

Reading literary narratives enhances ethical reflection on problems in daily

life (Hypothesis E2).

Literature is also thought to stimulate reflection beyond the private. Thisassumption pertains to two domains: critical reflection on philosophies of life,and contemporary developments in society. As to the former, Steiner (1989)argues that our understanding of many literary texts remains incomplete if itdoes not include cross-references to other texts or historical events. This maycreate an implicit philosophical dialogue. For example, we may read Golding’s

Lord of the Flies as an ideological comment on Ballantyne’s Coral Island , thus

putting into the pillory the optimistic belief in civilization the latter represents.Similarly, Gadamer (1996) asserts that our present set of norms and values maychange while we attempt to understand literary works of past eras. Interpretationinvolves putting ourselves in the ‘horizon’ of the author, but during thistransposition our own horizon tags along. According to Gadamer the encounterforms or tests our norms and values and the existing by themselves” (306).

Others have proposed that ensuing dialogue may result in a “fusion of these horizons supposedly literature functions as the public’s conscience and

enhances our awareness of certain abuses.14 Indeed, it seems that criticism of contemporary developments in society is frequently expressed in literature. In


33/217


his A Defence of Poetry [1840] Shelley even claimed poets to be the unac-knowledged legislators of this world. And many authors criticized what they

felt were undesirable developments in their society. Examples that spring tomind are Swift’s satires on the sciences of his day, Dickens’ critique on thedownside of industrialization, the criticism on bourgeois morality by Flaubert,Kafka’s view of bureaucracy, or Gogol’s Dead Souls, regarded as a bitterattack on corruption in Czarist Russia. A more recent debate few have missedis the discussion about freedom of expression and Islamic views followingKhomeiny’s fatwa pronounced over Salman Rushdie. His suffering has notbeen in vain, Rushdie thinks: “I really think that the publication of The Satanic

Verses and the following discussion, forced many people to reflect on somevery important issues, outside as well as inside the Islamic community. It isinteresting to see one novel may go a long way, and that the genre still has thatpower.”15

It could well be that the highly canonical texts and authors mentionedhere are subversively critical, rather than conserving some repressive estab-lishment as suggested earlier in Section 1.3 (Herrnstein Smith 1988; see VanPeer 1996). It seems likely that, as Fokkema (1986) argues, the canon is an

open system that represents a matrix of possible answers relevant for the timeswe live in. Times change, and so do the questions we ask. History shows thatthe canon changes along with them.

Reading literary narratives enhances reflections about ethical problems re-lated to contemporary developments in society (Hypothesis E3).

1.7.2 Reconsider and look again

What makes literature a particularly suitable instrument for reflection onprivate and public problems? First, it is supposed that literary reading involveslooking at things from a different perspective than we are used to. Central toour concept of literature is that its quality does not lie in what is represented,but in how it is represented. Shklovsky [1917] was perhaps the most eloquentspokesman for this principle. In his phrasing, literary texts provide readerswith new ways to perceive the world. By “making things strange,” literatureproduces an intense and immediate experience of the world. This process of estrangement goes against the automatization of our perceptions. Lookingthrough the eyes of a horse, readers of Tolstoy’s story ‘Cholstomer’ renewtheir perception of the world of humans. The horse’s incomprehension of


34/217

Apologies 23

words like ‘my’ and ‘mine’, embodying the concept of ownership, makesreaders see human relations anew.

According to Shklovsky, defamiliarization is a function of the literarydevices authors use. In contrast to everyday language, literature employs thesedevices with largely aesthetic purposes; their effect is to slow down communi-cation. Shklovsky was not concerned with the moral implications of theseeffects. He focused on aesthetic aspects, such as the intensification of percep-tion. A poem about a stone helps readers to powerfully realize the ‘stoniness’of a stone. However, the same devices may affect readers’ awareness aboutother things too, for example their own position in society. Brecht’s [1948]

theory of Verfremdung stresses the potential of literary ‘estrangement’ to bearon social change.16 Things that have existed for a long time seem unchange-able to us. Brecht works toward a form of literature that, through an estrangedmode of seeing things, may help us realize that even the organization of society can be changed. Instead of being merely persuasive in a crude way,this effect results in open-mindedness, Bronzwaer (1986) adds. Reading helpsus to reflect on the world, on our prejudices, thus avoiding the fossilization of our political and social norms. These effects are pre-ethical — in other words,

they precede and improve the basis for ethical reflection.Defamiliarization effects of literature generate an open-minded attitude, en-abling readers to look at ethical problems in a new, fresh, and intense way(Hypothesis PE6).

This is a strong argument to suppose that literature is particularly suitable toenhance ethical reflection. While television soaps may broach ethical issues,the predictable way in which such matters are dealt with can hardlydefamiliarize and subsequently renew readers’ entrenched categories. The

typical defamiliarization devices of literature, by contrast, may generate ethi-cal effects of an intensity not encountered in the more popular media. Adorno(1967) would have agreed. He argues that mass media impede people frombecoming autonomous, independent thinking individuals and thus are a men-ace to democratic societies.

There is an additional reason to believe that unfamiliar perspectivesenhance the quality of ethical reflection. In every work of literature, says J.E.Miller (1968) we may find a new perspective on life. As a result of reading

literature, one may become familiar with a large diversity of ways of lookingat the world. Reading broadly, Miller assumes, exposes one to a multitude of ethical systems and moral perspectives, and thus causes an expansion and


35/217


deepening of one’s moral awareness.

Literature makes readers become acquainted with a wider range of moralperspectives (Hypothesis PE7).

Being aware of various possible points of view is a precondition for adequateethical reflection. Therefore, this hypothesis pertains to a pre-ethical effect.

Another line of reasoning emphasizes the reflective distance typical forliterary communication. For Althusser [1966], great novelists like Balzac andSolzhenitsyn are able to let us perceive the ideology that normally curtails ourperception of society by taking a step backward. This creates an internal

distance toward the very same ideology from which their novels originate.Habermas (1983) argues that literature cannot provide behavioral rules. Itsmoral ambiguity makes that readers are typically unable to come to anunivocal moral judgment. However, in being free from the pressures to makemoral decisions, this creates a sanctuary for ethical reflection. As MilanKundera (1995) puts it, literature, or the novel, is a realm where moral judgment is suspended, which “stands against the ineradicable human habit of judging instantly, ceaselessly, and everyone; of judging before, and in theabsence of, understanding” (7). Several authors (e.g., Winkler 1985; Euben

1990) point out that there were times when this temporary suspension of judgment was even a public function of literature. Others add that nowadays itis at least a psychological need for all of us (Rushdie 1991). DePaul (1993)argues that we often need to insert a mental distance to our situation in order tocome to an adequate judgment. This is especially important when we arepersonally involved in, for example, a domestic quarrel. Not being able to takea detached viewpoint will make it difficult to recognize what is important andwhat is not. Precisely because of our distance from the events described in

literary narratives, reading offers us an opportunity to train our ethical ‘fac-ulty.’ The gist of these views are captured in the following two hypotheses.

The ambiguity of ethical positions in a literary text stimulates ethical reflec-tion (Hypothesis PE8).

The mental distance readers maintain toward fictional events in literary textsallows them to make more careful moral inquiries (Hypothesis PE9).

Considering these arguments, it seems that reading literature enhances the

quality of ethical reflection. In addition, the involvement in ethical reflectionitself may improve future reflections. J. Hillis Miller (1987) argues thatreading literature may enhance readers’ ability of interpretation. This, in turn,


36/217

Apologies 25

may help them to have a better understanding of ethics and its conceptualstudy, which in turn may have implications for their moral, social and political

life. So, ethical reflection (an ethical effect of reading literature) trains readersto make more discerning ethical inquiries (a pre-ethical side effect). Thisbrings us to a last hypothesis.

Reading literary narratives stimulates ethical reflection, which enhances theunderstanding of ethical discourse (Hypothesis PE10).

Shelley wrote his Defence of Poetry to argue that writing poetry is not simplya waste of time as Peacock bantered. Similarly, I think the arguments put forth

in this chapter suggest that it is worthwhile to examine whether certainassumptions about the effects of literature are valid. We have seen that severalof our most central beliefs about literature imply effects on the reader. Some of these effects are relevant to ethics, either directly or indirectly. Still, noteveryone seems convinced that these effects take place. And they have a point.People who made these claims did little to find out whether their argumentswere valid. Novels may be quoted, cases may be brought forward, intimateself-observations may be revealed, but this will not convince the true sceptic.

Now that some of the conceptual issues about what reading literature may

do to readers have been clarified, let us move on to a review of the availableevidence. The table below lists the hypotheses presented in this chapter. It willfunction as a point of reference for the next chapter, where I will examine theevidence.

Overview of the hypotheses

Pre-ethical effects

1. A sequence of events presented in a story affects readers’ beliefs aboutcausality: “action a leads to consequence b” (see Section 1.4).

2. Reading narratives enhances the ability to make psychological inferencesabout the emotions, thoughts, and motives others have in certain situations(1.5.1).

3. The complexity of literary characters helps readers to have more sophisti-

cated ideas about others’ emotions and motives than stereotyped charactersin popular fiction (1.5.2).


37/217


4. The attention given to the genesis and development of moral problems inliterary texts raises our awareness of the complexity of ethical problems

(1.5.2).5. Participating in an imaginary role-play may produce an awareness of

repressed emotions, thus enabling more reasonable judgment (1.6.1).6. Defamiliarization effects of literature generate an open-minded attitude,

enabling readers to look at ethical problems in a new, fresh, and intenseway (1.7.2).

7. Literature makes readers become acquainted with a wider range of moralperspectives (1.7.2).

8. The ambiguity of ethical positions in a literary text stimulates ethicalreflection (1.7.2).

9. The mental distance readers maintain toward fictional events in literarytexts allows them to make more careful moral inquiries (1.7.2).

10.Reading literary narratives stimulates ethical reflection, which enhancesthe understanding of ethical discourse (1.7.2).

Ethical effects

1. Reading narratives is a thought-experiment. Readers try out certain rolesand reflect on the consequences of these roles (1.6.2).

2. Reading literary narratives enhances ethical reflection on problems in dailylife (1.7.1).

3. Reading literary narratives enhances reflections about ethical problemsrelated to contemporary developments in society (1.7.1).

Moral effects

1. Narratives affect readers’ beliefs or expectations about their lives. Thisincludes consequences for their behavioral norms, e.g., cultural or socialcodes (1.3.1).

2. A narrative presentation is more persuasive than a non-narrative one(1.3.2).

3. The fictionality of narratives does not impair its effects on readers’ beliefsand behavioral norms (1.4.1).

4. By means of rhetorical devices narratives move readers to accept a per-ceived behavioral norm, or to sense a renewed awareness of it (1.6.3).


38/217

Apologies 27

Notes

1. Peacock [1820].

2. Shelley’s Defence is a response to an essay written by a good friend of Shelley’s, ThomasLove Peacock. His The Four Ages of Poetry should not be taken to be a serious attack onpoetry (see Brett-Smith’s introduction to Peacock’s essay).

3. See philosophical dictionaries such as Sandkühler (1990) and Lacey (1976); see also DeGraaf (1980).

4. Cf. Bronzwaer (1986): 69.

5. M1 to distinguish it from hypotheses about pre-ethical (PE) and ethical effects (E).

6. Plato’s The Republic. Book III (129) and X (433).

7. See Steven Mufson’s article ‘Is Ibsen an Enemy of the People’s Republic?’ International Herald Tribune (4 September 1996) on the production of the play by Wu Xiaojiang.

8. There may be exceptions to this rule, as recent attempts to write virtual history show(Ferguson, 1997).

9. Discussion about the ethical side of Racine’s Phèdre by Willem Jan Otten in NRC Handelsblad , 23 December 1994.

10. See Aristotle’s Politica (1342a 14–15), and On the Art of Poetry (6).

11. Quoted in Beardsley (1958): 574.

12. Quoted in Vickers (1988): 277.

13. Corbett’s examples (1971: 489–490).

14. See for some examples Downs (1978).

15. Interview with Bas Heijne, published in NRC Handelsblad , 2 December 1994.

16. See Brecht 1976: 99n.


39/217


40/217

Chapter 2

Changing Readers

Die Erkenntnis beginnt nicht mit Wahrnehmungen oder Beobachtungen oderder Sammlung von Daten oder von Tatsachen, sondern sie beginnt mit

Problemen. Karl Popper1

2.1 Introduction

The first time you call at your friends’ or colleagues’ home, you often findyourself secretly browsing through their bookshelves. While the hosts aregetting drinks from the kitchen, we guests seem to think the titles will reveal

some aspect of our hosts’ personality. How reliable are such inferences? Thischapter reviews a wide range of studies suggesting that bookcases may bequite revealing. The main focus will be on studies of an experimental nature,relating them — wherever possible — to the hypotheses outlined in Chapter 1.I will start the exploration of the field by briefly looking at some results of correlational and qualitative approaches.

2.1.1 Correlations

Our friends’ library may be quite telling. Instead of merely revealing hobbiesand aesthetic preferences, it may help us to predict some of their norms andvalues, their standpoints in politics and social issues, and their personality(Miall & Kuiken 1995; Hakemulder 1995; Van Assche 1981; Perine 1977;Wilson 1956). Thus, Perine (1977) found correlations between orientationstoward literature and approaches to moral judgment. Van Assche (1981)showed that aesthetic preferences and ranking of values are strongly associ-ated. Subjects in his study were asked to choose one of six poems as theirfavorite. Clear differences in preferences occurred between subjects whoendorsed intimate-oriented values such as ‘happiness,’ and ‘true friendship,’


41/217


and those preferring more world-oriented values like ‘world peace,’ and‘equality.’ In another study, the degree of literary reading habits, or “literary

participation,” correlated significantly with adherence to particular opinions(Hakemulder 1995). In a random sample in the city of Utrecht approximately200 subjects participated in a telephone questionnaire. Analysis of the re-sponses showed that adherence to liberal, progressive, and postmaterialistopinions correlated strongly with literary participation. Conversely, no corre-lation was found between literary participation and opinions related to conser-vatism, restrictivism, and materialism. Wilson (1956) found that scope anddepth of literary experience was significantly correlated to construction (i.e.,

the desire to build ideas or objects, to execute projects and create new things)and cognizance (the desire for knowledge of all varieties). Furthermore, anegative relation was found with extroversion. In five separate studies Miall &Kuiken (1995) found that subjects’ attitude to literature is a reliable predictorof scores on several personality measures, such as: readiness to be captured byimaginal events, and readiness to modify them; learning style; approaches tomorality; and tolerance for complexity.

In conclusion, knowing someone’s reading habits helps us to pre-

dict his or her opinions and personality. However, it is unclear whether we canassume that there is a causal relation between literary participation and per-sonality traits. Also, if there is, what is the direction of this causality? Doesreading affect readers’ personality and values, or is it the other way around?

2.1.2 Qualitative approaches

In several studies the question about the effect of reading was addresseddirectly to the readers themselves, which resulted in testimonies that suppos-edly exemplify that reading does shape the reader (e.g., Culp 1985 & 1977;Ebersole 1974; Lachenmann 1999; Shirley 1969; Wilson 1956). In Shirley’sstudy, a large group of high school students completed a questionnaire on howliterature had affected their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior. Subsequently, anumber of informants was selected for case studies. Some of their statementssuggest that reading literature stimulates ethical reflection on everyday prob-lems and social issues. One reader reported that through his reading of Golding’s The Lord of the Flies he “gained insight into how civilization is a

thin veneer and how people can change when away from it” (Shirley1969: 372). Miller’s Death of a Salesman brought another reader “to the


42/217

Changing Readers 31

realization of how very easy it is to get lost in the shuffle of life and that onceyou get behind, it’s nearly impossible to find your place again” (372). The

response of the following reader of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment suggests the kind of moral self-evaluation discussed in Chapter 1: “Afterreading the book I discovered how self-centered I was and how quick I was toform my opinions” (410). One of the readers of Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Menshows the kind of compassion literature supposedly arouses: “to see the plightof the poor common laborer and how he is taken advantage of by bettereducated men. I felt sorry for them… I felt depressed. I cried after reading Of

Mice and Men” (406).

Several other qualitative studies pointed out that literature is a suitablevehicle for ‘tackling sensitive issues’ (Cheek 1992; Mullarkey 1987; Rhodes1990; Sullivan 1987). Sullivan describes experiences with a bibliotherapeuticprogram used in a fourth grade classroom. Listening to and discussing storiesproved to be helpful in getting problems out into the open, problems relating toparental divorce, human relations and handicaps. Rhodes analyzed responsesof six students to a novel and concluded that her subjects concentrated onissues with which they might be confronted in their own lives. In a similar

study, Mullarkey reports that reading enhanced subjects’ insights about theirpersonal lives. Her analysis of recorded responses to novels suggests that theinsights were prompted by identification with the fictional characters. Cheek’sobservations of classroom discussions of literature showed that teachers fre-quently focused students’ attention on ethical aspects of the texts. It seems thatin literary education students are often stimulated to reflect on ethical issues.

All this may add to the plausibility of the hypotheses advanced before.There are reasons, however, to subject them to further tests, preferably inexperimental settings. Subjects in self-report studies may be sincere in theirself-observations, but their personal reconstruction of their past experiencesand the formative effect of these on their character may not always be reliableand is scarcely verifiable. In Chapter 1 we saw that many (Western) theoriesof literature incorporate assumptions about the effects of reading. It may bethat reader reports reflect these beliefs rather than actual influence. As we sawearlier, the results of correlation studies are not conclusive either. It remainsunclear whether there is a causal relation between literary participation andpersonality variables. Determining whether reading literary texts has any

effects requires experimentation, allowing researchers to maximize controlover potential and relevant variables, so that it can be estimated whether


43/217


independent variables (e.g., exposure to a literary text) have an effect ondependent variables (e.g., readers’ norms and attitudes).

2.2 Experimental research

In my search for experimental evidence I used the following sources. For theperiod 1980 to 1995 I consulted the Psychological Abstracts and Dissertation

Abstracts International. To track experiments conducted before 1980, refer-ences in a number of articles and books (e.g., Kimmel 1970; Klementz-

Belgardt 1981) were checked. Finally, forty scholars were asked forinformation about their own work, and whether they knew of any otherrelevant studies. The effort yielded a total of 54 experiments relevant to theresearch problem at hand. Where information was missing, an attempt wasmade to contact the author or to search for a more complete report.

The studies were first categorized according to the effects researcherswere after, resulting in eight categories, which I will now briefly introduce inorder of apparent importance to our present concerns. Appendix 1 contains

tables summarizing the essentials of the studies: what the treatments consistedof; how many subjects were used and what age they were; the design theresearchers used and the tests they administered; what the results were; andfinally, any potential problems of the study.

I Norms and values

Eight studies examined effects on norms and values (Berg-Cross & Berg-Cross 1978; Brandhorst 1973; Burt 1972; Freimuth & Jamieson 1977;Keener 1977; Kigar 1978; Milgram 1967; Schram & Geljon 1988; see

Table I in Appendix 1).II Moral development

Another eight experiments tried to establish whether reading narrativescan boost the development of moral judgment (two studies by Biskin &Hoskisson 1977; Gallagher 1978; Garrod 1982; Johnson 1990; Justice1989; Keefe 1975; Kinnard 1986; Table II in Appendix 1).

III Empathy

In four studies researchers examined the effects of reading narratives on a

group of variables related to empathy, namely: the ability to make infer-ential attributes about another person’s thinking, attitudes, emotions (a


44/217

Changing Readers 33

result of cognitive perception); motivation for prosocial behavior; andactual altruistic conduct (Bilsky 1989; Healy 1980; Milner 1982; Wiley

1991; Table II I).IV Outgroup attitudes

This category contains sixteen studies. They examined whether readingnarratives portraying particular outgroups affects readers’ attitudes to-ward such outgroups (Alsbrook 1970; Beardsley 1979; Brisbin 1971;Fisher 1965; Frankel 1972; Geiger 1975; Gimmestad & De Chiara 1982;Hayes 1969; Heintz 1988; Jackson 1944; Kimoto 1974; Litcher &Johnson 1969; Schwartz 1972; Stone 1985; Tauran 1967; Zucaro 1972;

Table IV).V Sex-role concepts

Six studies assessed the effectiveness of treatments in changing subjects’concept of sex-roles, for example, their beliefs about cognitive abilities of the sexes, or their norms about what tasks and jobs are more appropriatefor men or women (Ashby & Wittmaier 1978; Barclay 1974; Berg-Cross& Berg-Cross 1978; two studies in Flerx et al. 1976; McArthur & Eisen1976; Table V).

VI Self-esteem

The effects of reading narratives on self-appraisal were examined inseven studies (Doering 1985; Garrod 1982; Gross 1977; Koeller 1977;Roach 1975; Trimble 1984; Woodyard 1970; Table VI).

VII Critical thinking

Three studies tried to establish effects of literature-based curricula onsubjects’ cognitive and analytical abilities (Bird 1984; Dukess 1985;Schulhauser 1990; Table VII).

VIII Anxiety reduction

Five researchers studied therapeutic applications of reading narratives,more specifically the reduction of anxiety (Cutforth 1980; McClaskey1970; Quale 1979; Scheff and Scheele 1980; Smith 1979; see Table VIII).

2.2.1 Criteria for evaluation

Before discussing the results of the experiments, we need a criterion toevaluate them. In particular, we need to distinguish studies that offer directevidence to support researchers’ claims from those that do not. The criteria I


45/217


used are derived from Cook & Campbell (1979: 37–94). They present a usefulguideline for estimating the validity of experimental research. In my evalua-

tion I took into account that not all these criteria are equally important. Forexample, in many studies treatment and testing were conducted by the sameperson. As a result, the outcome of these experiments may be open to threatsof “hypothesis-guessing.” Subjects may have related one task (e.g., reading astory) with another (completing the posttest). Having guessed the aim of theexperimenter, they may have responded accordingly, trying to help the re-searcher to find what he or she expected of them. Hypothesis-guessing neednot be a serious threat to validity. As Cook & Campbell stress themselves,

there is no widespread evidence that subjects tend to provide answers that willplease re

The Moral Laboratory

Documents

Transcript of The Moral Laboratory