Institutionalised (ab)use of Interpretation: A Call for Reforming the Academic Use of Reader Response Practices in the Indian Literary Academia

<p>Reader-response criticism or theory is considered a paradigm that empowers the reader to read and interpret the text independently. In addition, the rationale behind reader-response theory is the premise proposed by Stanley Fish, which is that the object, including the literary text, is constructed by the subject or a group of subjects or interpretive communities. Specifically, Reader Response thrives on the dichotomy between object and subject by implying no pure objects or subjects. Considering the phenomenon mentioned above, it implies that the subject determines the object. In the literary context, it opines that the reader attributes meaning to the text. Positioning the reader as the fulcrum of literary analysis provided the impetus to unearth diverse narratives and interpretations otherwise evaded for several socio-political reasons. While no scepticism is involved in acknowledging the significance of reader-response theories in revolutionising literary reading, there lies a critical concern regarding its viability and vitality in the academic context in facilitating effective interpretive activity: Firstly, In test-based and biased academia, reading is generally viewed as means to achieve examination success. Since ‘success’ in conventional mainstream assessments is possible sans reading the literary text, actual reading is a rarity. In such a scenario, when the reader is not born, the reader’s response is exposed as a pretence. Secondly, Since the phenomenon called interpretation offers the license to put forth one’s perspectives, more often than not, it showcases the arrogant ignorance of teachers and learners with their lack of literary, socio-cultural and political awareness and an abundance of ‘induced wisdom.’ Such skewed interpretations and shallow use of the liberty to interpret can only be considered an ‘institutionalised abuse.’ Therefore, this deliberation on the educational use of Reader Response theories becomes pertinent. This reflective paper encourages diverse reading practices and postponing forced interpretations fostered through examinations and assessment activities. Facilitating diverse and continuous reading will, in turn, hone the critical interpretive potential of the readers rather than lending ‘interpretative autonomy’ to ignorant and arrogant readers in the name of reader response.  In addition, this paper lists a few suggestions for revitalising the vitality and credibility of reader response in the Indian literary studies milieu.  Therefore, this paper serves two purposes: a critique and a call for reform.</p>