Autobiographical and Personal Criticism
Autobiographical and Personal Criticism
Immanuel Kant was one of the first modern-day philosophers who admitted that there is no such thing as an “objective” interpretation, and that every interpreter brings a great deal to the text. Up to very recently almost all scholarly writing has been defined by the absence of the “I” or any reference to the personal situation of the writer or to the writing process. This situation has changed drastically with the introduction of autobiographical criticism.
Autobiographical criticism is also known as personal criticism, confessional criticism, autocritography, New Belletrism, New Subjectivism, or even moi criticism. It is thus a form of self-disclosure, but the degree of self-disclosure, or self-exposure, varies. Most of the currents in literature theory and criticism in the past thirty years have concentrated on the problematic of readers and reading. The widespread acceptance of responsibility to and for our own reading experiences is one of the major catalysts for the present surge of autobiographical criticism.
Autobiographical biblical criticism entails an explicitly autobiographical performance within the act of criticism. This involves implementing personal criticism as a form of self-disclosure, wittingly, while reading a text as a critical exegete. It requires a willing, knowledgeable, outspoken involvement with the subject matter on the part of the critic. It discloses the fact that the act of reading and interpreting are subjective.
1. Autobiographical scholars
The Golden Era for the entrance of autobiographical criticism as genre on the theological academic landscape was in the late eighties to the mid nineties. That was the period when the most work on this topic was published. Since then, in certain communities, it were generally accepted that all theology was anyway autobiographical.
According to Moore (1995:20), four books in particular stand out as exemplifying autobiographical
Immanuel Kant was one of the first modern-day philosophers who admitted that there is no such thing as an “objective” interpretation, and that every interpreter brings a great deal to the text. Up to very recently almost all scholarly writing has been defined by the absence of the “I” or any reference to the personal situation of the writer or to the writing process. This situation has changed drastically with the introduction of autobiographical criticism.
Autobiographical criticism is also known as personal criticism, confessional criticism, autocritography, New Belletrism, New Subjectivism, or even moi criticism. It is thus a form of self-disclosure, but the degree of self-disclosure, or self-exposure, varies. Most of the currents in literature theory and criticism in the past thirty years have concentrated on the problematic of readers and reading. The widespread acceptance of responsibility to and for our own reading experiences is one of the major catalysts for the present surge of autobiographical criticism.
Autobiographical biblical criticism entails an explicitly autobiographical performance within the act of criticism. This involves implementing personal criticism as a form of self-disclosure, wittingly, while reading a text as a critical exegete. It requires a willing, knowledgeable, outspoken involvement with the subject matter on the part of the critic. It discloses the fact that the act of reading and interpreting are subjective.
1. Autobiographical scholars
The Golden Era for the entrance of autobiographical criticism as genre on the theological academic landscape was in the late eighties to the mid nineties. That was the period when the most work on this topic was published. Since then, in certain communities, it were generally accepted that all theology was anyway autobiographical.
According to Moore (1995:20), four books in particular stand out as exemplifying autobiographical
Bibliography: Adam, A K M 1995. What is postmodern biblical criticism? Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Anderson, J C & Staley, J L 1995. Taking it personally: Introduction. Semeia 72, 7-18. Borg, M J 2002. Reading the Bible again for the first time: Taking the Bible seriously but not literally. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. Fowler, R M 1995. Taking it personally: A personal response. Semeia 72, 231-238. Henking, S E 1995. Who better to indulge?: (Self) indulgent theorizing and the stuff of ambivalence. Semeia 72, 239-246. Maldonado, R D 1995. Reading Malinche reading Ruth: Toward a hermeneutics of betrayal. Semeia 72, 91-110. Moore, S D 1995. True confessions and weird obsessions: Autobiographical interventions in literary and biblical studies. Semeia 72, 19-50. O’Brien, J M 1995. On saying “no” to a prophet. Semeia 72, 111-124. Van Aarde, A G 2002. Methods and models in the quest for the historical Jesus: Historical criticism and/or social criticism. HTS 58(2), 419-439. Flip Schutte