Final Report

Research Education

The Dominance of Formalism in

Singapore Secondary School

Literary Education

Samuel Ho (10), 3B

Jotham Ng (18), 3B

Choo Ian Kang (7), 3C

ABSTRACT 

1

Formalism has been a longstanding critical tradition in the Singaporean secondary

school literary education. Through this project, we wish to question the validity of

formalism’s dominance, ascertain the extent of its dominance across different types of

schools and discuss the causes and implications of its dominance. 

  

Formalism is shown in our study to have a profound influence on students – not

surprisingly so, since an overwhelming majority of curricula are structured around

and largely focused upon formalism. In addition, we established five different ways

people would justify the dominance of formalism, namely, the humanist, pragmatic,

purist, positivist and political views. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

CONTENTS PAGE 

2

COVER PAGE 

ABSTRACT 

CONTENTS PAGE 

  

 Chapter 1  INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Statement of objective 

1.2 Purpose of study 

1.3 Scope of study 

1.4 Limitations of study 

Chapter 2  REVIEW OF LITERATURE  

2.1 New Criticism, formalism and its proponents 

2.2 Formalism in Singapore 

  

Chapter 3  METHODS 

3.1 Interview 

3.2 Survey-experiment 

  

Chapter 4  RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 

4.1 Raffles Institution (Raffles Programme) 

4.2 Raffles Institution (Raffles Academy) 

4.3 Coral Secondary School (O-Level) 

  

Chapter 5  DISCUSSION 

Chapter 6  CLOSING 

3

  

REFERENCES 

APPENDICES 

·       “Literature in English: Teaching Syllabus (Lower and Upper Secondary)” 

·       Y2 Language Arts (Raffles Institution) Julius Caesar Documents 

·       Interview with Mr. James Koh 

·       Interview with Mrs. Patricia Nathan 

·       Interview with Mdm. Norita Ali 

·       Survey-experiment 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

4

  

Statement of objective 

Since the inception of Practical Criticism by I. A. Richards in the 1920s, formalism

has grown to become a longstanding, dominant critical tradition within secondary

literary education, including Singaporean secondary curricula. Specifically, New

Criticism (a type of formalism) is endorsed as a staple mode of examination within

Singapore. 

  

In this research study, we wish to find out the extent to which formalism is dominant

as a critical theory, the methods through which formalism is promoted, its possible

causes as well as implications on society. 

  

Purpose of study 

The adoption of the New Critics approach when analyzing texts has been a dominant

literary phenomenon in English-speaking secondary education (possibly following the

pre-eminence of the Cambridge O Level Examinations) – Singapore is no exception.

Throughout our two lower-secondary years of education in English Literature, New

Criticism has been the standard for poetry criticism and examinations on prose/play

texts often interrogate formalist elements. For example, close reading techniques are

taught extensively in preparation for unseen poetry tests wherein close attention is to

be paid to structure, language, imagery, movement and the use of sound in the poem,

and considerations of authorship (and its cultural or societal influences) or reader-

responses are flatly rejected. While many hold the formalist standard in high regard, it

remains a concern that such a method might limit the reader’s avenues of criticism in

addition to reducing the process of analysis to a very mechanistic and rigid process,

5

thereby stifling holistic, critical thinking on the student’s part. Our knowledge on a

studied text was also tested through the means of an argumentative essay which

largely restricted its concerns to theme and characterization within the given text – an

examination method which some may find lifeless.  

 

Thus, with such considerations in mind, we wish to interrogate the validity of the

formalistic outlook towards literary criticism in secondary school education (which is

often subtly claimed to be the ‘correct’ or veracious approach, which may be due to

its self-proclaimed objectivity, especially to students with little exposure to literary

theory) and hopefully provoke thought and offer insight into this episteme of literary

thinking. 

  

Scope of study 

Our scope is limited to the Singaporean education system – a small sample we hope is

representative of the multiple education avenues within Singapore

(Raffles Programme, Raffles Academy and O Level). 

  

Limitations of study 

Our study is highly limited and cannot be said to be representative of the entire

Singaporean literary education system since our samples were very small in

comparison to the entire student populace taking Literature in Singapore. Although

we tried to account for the various types of school, we were ultimately unable to

account for the differences between schools of the same type as that would require a

nationwide study (of which we were unable to carry out). 

  

6

The survey-experiment designed would also be unrepresentative even if we were able

to obtain a nationwide sample since the survey-experiment cannot be said to

empirically represent and account for all of a student’s thoughts undergoing the

process of textual analysis. In addition, its design being similar to close reading tests

might have unfairly biased the student sample towards formalism. Nevertheless, the

experiment remains a decent standard of how various students discriminate

information when encountering a text albeit being slightly flawed. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

7

  

New Criticism, formalism and its proponents 

New Criticism was a formalist movement in literary theory that dominated American

literary criticism in the middle decades of the 20th century and continues to have a

profound impact on the educational world. It emphasized the close reading of texts –

as a critic, one’s job was to discover how a work of literature functioned as a self-

contained aesthetic object. During analysis, special attention was paid to elements of a

text such as irony and ambiguity in addition to essential formalist elements of theme,

character or genre. 

  

The New Critics’ movement (prominent figures include I. A. Richards,

William Empson and Cleanth Brooks) was developed in response to the Romanticist

criticism in the 19th century which focused upon an author’s biographical

circumstances and comparative sources apart from the studied text itself. This method

of criticism was found by the New Critics to be unconvincing and unhelpful in textual

analysis – while recognizing the biographical and historical circumstances of an

author or the personal reader’s emotions and responses are excellent ‘ideals’, they can

doubtfully be said to be ‘recipes for improving criticism’, since ‘vulgarizations of

these ideals are flourishing […] in the class room presided over by the college lecturer

of infectious enthusiasm, in the gossipy Book-of-the-Month Club bulletins’ and has

been shown to instead hinder genuine literary criticism (Brooks 77). 

  

As an alternative to a reader or author-centered criticism, Cleanth Brooks defends

text-centric criticism by reasoning that “the author’s intention as realized [in the text]

is the “intention” that counts, not necessarily what he was conscious of trying to do,

8

or what he now remembers he was then trying to do”. Therefore, explicitly

considering authorial intention would be an unnecessary concern (Brooks 75).  

  

In response to concerns that a text-centered criticism would strip away a certain

humanity to the study of Literature, Brooks further adds that considerations of

‘humanity’ of the writer or reader are inconsequential upon and irrelevant to the

criticism of literature – “such studies of [the mental processes of the author or reader

foray into the fields of biography and psychology] describe the process of

composition, […] not the structure of the thing composed”, with which literary

criticism should be primarily concerned (Brooks 74). 

  

Formalism in Singapore 

Formalism is the mainstay critical method in Singaporean secondary literary

education. In addition to officially-distributed syllabuses, this is evinced by two

common modes of assessment within secondary education – close reading tests and

argumentative essays. It is also useful to note that formalistic expectations of

questions in these assessments are often coupled with a humanist attitude. 

 

The dominance of humanism-formalism is supported by the “Literature in English:

Teaching Syllabus 2013 (Lower and Upper Secondary)” in which students are

expected to analyse a text’s plot, character, style, theme and setting in order to ‘draw

connections between self, texts and the world in order to develop intellectual,

emotional, socio-cultural and global awareness’ (Ministry of Education 6).  

  

9

We can first justify the dominance of formalism through the pervasiveness of the

close reading test. We look towards the O Level assessments, since most secondary

school students in Singapore are inevitably educated towards the standard of the O

Level (including those in the Intergrated Programme). As a brief overview, although

the Cambridge Examinations require students to make an ‘informed personal

response’ and often phrases questions such that the author is involved, the actual aim

of the question is distinctly formalist and the phrasing of the question tends to evade

the possibility of it being answered correctly with a author-centered or reader-

centered critical approach. For example: 

  

In what ways does Tennyson strikingly convey the optimism and determination of

Ulysses in these lines? 

Explore the ways in which Scott beautifully portrays a relationship in this poem. 

Explore how the poet powerfully communicates the pain of loss in either The

Voice or Sonnet 29. 

  

While there appears to be an effort made to involve the author in the question, a

student would nevertheless find an answer involving the author irrelevant to the

question asked. Rather, the questions might be directly paraphrased respectively as: 

  

How is Ulysses’ optimism and determination conveyed in these lines? 

How is a relationship beautifully portrayed within this poem? 

How is the theme of ‘the pain of loss’ communicated in either The Voice or

Sonnet 29? 

  

10

It is evident that New Criticism (through the constant question of how) is the standard

of the GCE O Level Literature papers. As the Examiner Report points out, “textual

details” and “the examination of language and imagery” were to be used for these

questions. In addition to a certain expectation of formalist rigour, there is a distinct

humanist flavour to the questions – the use of terms such as ‘optimism’,

‘determination’, ‘beautifully’ or ‘powerfully communicates the pain of loss’ can be

seen to be attempts at foregrounding elements of human nature. Thus, we can see the

humanist and formalist influences upon the O Level paper. Since many Singaporean

secondary school students work towards the standard of the O Level, we can claim

that formalism has a strong foothold within the educational sphere. 

Apart from close reading, there is also a focus on argumentative writing concerning

basic formalist elements. For example, Year 2 students in Raffles Institution are

assessed of their literary skills by writing an essay arguing for or against a statement

concerning a characterization or a theme within a given text – questions such

as Cassius believes that “men at some time are masters of their fate”, or Are men

truly “masters of their fate” in Julius Caesar?’ are predominant in such essay

examinations. The student is prepared for such questions with lectures on the

characterization of various figures in the text as well as large themes that are phrased

in a universal manner (or specifically to the aforementioned questions, the theme of

“fate and free will”) that the text is concerned with (relevant documents of which are

attached in the appendices) – another sign of the humanist-formalist influence upon

Singaporean secondary literary education. 

    

  

11

 CHAPTER 3: METHODS 

Having understood the various structures and materials set in place for Singaporean

literary education, we recognized a necessity for assessing the reality of the literary-

critical situation in schools before we could accurately establish the possible causes

and implications of such a system.  

 

For each type of literary education (O Level, Raffles Programme, Raffles Academy),

we sought to test for students’ responses to a given text (to be further elaborated

upon) in addition to interviewing the relevant teachers with regards to curriculum

planning and their opinions on formalism as a critical method.  

  

Interview 

We conducted interviews with various teachers of different types of literary education

with regards to curriculum, pedagogy as well as their opinions on formalism. We

interviewed Mdm. Norita Ali (Coral Secondary School), Mr. James Koh (Raffles

Institution) and Mdm. Patricia Nathan (Raffles Institution) using the following

template of questions: 

1. What are the aims of the English Literature curriculum? 2. What are the main pedagogical principles? 3. What are the examination modes used to test competency in English Literature? 4. What does the English Department recognise as measures of competency in English Literature? 5. Is there a dominant critical method assumed in the teaching of Literature? 6a. If so, what do you find are the benefits of using this critical method dominantly? 6b. Rather, what are the disadvantages of using other critical methods? 7a. Do you find it important to foreground different critical methods in the mainstream classroom? 7b. Why?   

12

Their full responses are attached in the appendix and relevant portions will be

highlighted in Chapter 4 and elaborated upon. 

  

Survey-experiment 

We also surveyed a varied sample of students, investigating their natural/learned

biases (with regards to critical methods) when encountering texts. This survey was in

essence a poetry test on Christopher van Wyk’s “In Detention”, and students were

asked to annotate the poem as well as to come up with two questions they would ask

if they were teachers. The document the surveyed students received for the survey is

attached in the appendix. 

  

We attempted to ensure a balance between political and apolitical prompts within the

survey sheet – while we reminded them of their formalist inclinations (“annotate

based on points significant and relevant” – although students are never actually

encouraged to adopt a formalist method in the survey sheet), we also left hints

referring to the political nature of the poem (“writer following the Soweto uprising” –

which ought to give an inkling of a political influence within the text even though

many students are not exposed to the Apartheid era and its events). By creating an

equal number of prompts on both sides, students would be more influenced by their

biases and habits rather than the expectations of the direct task at hand. 

  

 

  

  

  

13

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 

  

Raffles Institution (Raffles Academy) 

Due to the exposure of the Raffles Academy (RA) students to critical thought outside

of humanism-formalism, the RA students exhibited much interest in extra-textual

elements when interpreting the poem. A majority of the responses noted the poem’s

possible relation to the South African Apartheid and asked in the question section

about the poet’s relations or attitudes towards Apartheid events. 

  

In addition to noticing this relation, many responses also made firm links between the

concerns about Apartheid back to the text and how the text referred to extra-textual

elements. For example, a student commented that the poem highlighted that the poet

could have been commenting on the irrationality of the colonial masters through the

apparent absurdity of certain phrases within the poem. Another student pointed out

that the absurdity of the phrases was a way to convey the poet’s spite at the absurd,

insufficient, irresponsible excuses made by the colonial government to ‘cover up [the

dehumanized detainee’s] death’. 

  

The RA students were more adept at accounting for the repetition and convolution of

phrases. This is probably due to the fact that the poem was inherently political in

nature and RA students, having undergone a module on the relationship between

politics and literature, would have been more inclined to comment upon power

structures and relations portrayed within the poem. Nevertheless, several RA students

remained focused on a text-centered approach. 

  

14

The RA students were also more inclined to comment upon the dehumanization of the

detainee. Many noted the impersonal and repetitive use of “he”, which had the effect

of leaving the detainee undefined and objectified. Some also noted the implicit

relation of the detainee to objects through the use of language, such as the relation of

the detainee to mere laundry items by the use of the phrase “He hung from the ninth

floor” where we might more commonly say “He hung himself from the ninth floor”.

Interestingly, a student also noted that the repetitive nature of the poem in its words as

well as sounds (washing, slipping, floor) might suggest that the fabricator of these

statements was doing ‘work like clockwork or routine’ – as a result, both the

oppressor and oppressed are equally dehumanized. Thus, it is reasonable to say that

the RA students were more inclined to comment upon the poem in a less humanist

attitude. 

  

We can conclude that RA students are more inclined to (though not definitively)

depart from formalist methods in addition to taking varied attitudes towards texts

(between humanism and materialism). An important point that Mr. James Koh makes

in our interview with him is that RA is aimed at enabling and encouraging students to

be self-reflexive and critical about their meaning-making process. He further

mentions that the RA student is brought to be more aware about the contestation of

different literary metanarratives which attempt to assert its ideal of meaning-making,

thus accounting for the varied humanist and materialist outlooks on the poem. In

addition, various critical methods such as postcolonialism (which is particularly

relevant to the set poem) are also taught aside the conventional close reading and

humanist readings of texts, attuning the student to be more critical about other

15

elements disregarded by formalists as irrelevant about a text and thus resulting in the

departure from formalism. 

  

Raffles Institution (Raffles Programme) 

The responses of the Raffles Programme (RP) students remained largely formalist in

nature, although interest was shown towards extra-textual elements. While devices

such as repetition and convolution were (largely the only elements) noted in the

annotation portion, students instead concerned themselves in the question section

partially with ‘reader’s reaction’ or the poet’s ‘feelings and emotions’ (although the

question section remained unquestionably dominated by formalism, through questions

such as ‘how does the poet enhance the delivery of his theme’ or ‘explain the constant

repetition of certain terms’). We found this particularly interesting to consider as it

reflected a certain interest in RP students to depart from formalism although they

were unable to do so with the given text (and fairly so, since the RP classroom

foregrounds humanism-formalism). 

  

That being said, extra-textual elements were also occasionally noted. For example, a

student drew an arrow from ‘uprising’ (as in ‘Soweto uprising’) and wrote

‘prisoners!!!’ in addition to underlining ‘South African’ and writing passingly

‘welcome to johannesburg’. It is evident that this student was conscious of the

contextual setting of the poem but was unable to explicate this information in a way

useful to the text that would make an affirmative departure from formalism. 

  

As compared to the Raffles Academy students, RP students were not altogether very

concerned with the dehumanized detainee – in fact, the detainee is regarded more

16

conventionally as the human individual descending into a state of madness (‘does

same thing every day goes insane’). The other conclusion drawn from the poem is a

romanticized interpretation of persecution: ‘different people all suffering the same

fate’ which remains largely humanist. 

  

The RP students were also largely unable to rationalize the repetitive devices as well

as the convolution of phrases in the last 8 lines.  

  

The repetition was duly noted by nearly all of the RP students – the word ‘repetition’

appeared on almost every survey sheet and many also underlined the repeating

phrases (one student even went so far as to assign a number to each of the phrases in

order to discern a pattern to the mixing-up of phrases). However, most of them were

unable to explain the repetitive device – the only explanation given out of the whole

batch purported that the repetition translated to a detainee going insane due to

repeated actions. 

  

The RP students appeared even more baffled when encountering the convolution of

phrases – the convolution was merely stated and acknowledged but was not

explained. The best explanation that was given still remained within the domain of

formalism: ‘this part’s really messy which is a interesting contradiction to the very

action of “cleaning up”.’ 

  

It seems reasonable to conclude that while RP students do show a slight interest in

interpretations of a text external to the text itself, their skill sets and literary paradigms

still operate strictly within humanism-formalism. Our interview with Mrs. Patricia

17

Nathan further supports this claim – she mentions that formalism is at the heart of the

RP curriculum and is very concerned that students have a very firm formalist

grounding before approaching other elements since the text is and should be after all

the central focus of the study of Literature. In addition to this concern, she highlights

that there is not enough time for Literature lessons to teach a plethora of critical

methods. Therefore, there is a predominant need for the foregrounding of elements

like plot, character, theme and theory in addition to the development of essential

formalist skills when approaching texts. 

  

When asked about her opinions on the marriage of formalism and humanism forming

the dominant curriculum, she highlights that if students were to go beyond these

essential critical methods, an acute formalist sense for texts has to be a given –

something which she feels RP students currently have difficulty even achieving. She

thus finds approaches beyond humanism-formalism unrealistic in the current context

of education. However, she also mentions that humanism remains a strong cause for

Literature. Human experience remains universal and while there will be inevitable

cultural differences that might set apart different groups of people, essential

experiential concepts or problems remain the same, such as love or hamartia. Thus,

she finds it unproblematic for the RP curriculum to be structured in a manner that

appeals to basic human instinct, giving the example that when the common man (for

whom education must seek to provide for) picks up a book, he does not immediately

plunge into a Marxist reading but instead enjoys the book for its relatable human

experiences. 

  

Coral Secondary School (O Level) 

18

For this sample of O Level students studying at Coral Secondary School, they are

primarily concerned with plot interpretation and thematic conclusions not unlike a

conventional comprehension exercise. While there are various questions that focus on

the poet’s technique and a few others do interrogate authorial intention, there are

many questions that sound like ‘What is this poem about?’ or ‘What is the theme of

this poem?’ – in fact, 6 out of the 20 questions are rephrases of ‘What is the poem

about’. Combined with annotations on the poem like ‘Different ways of doing things,

but they all end in death, whether from suicide, something major or something minor’

or ‘starts out with clear events that would kill him [and] finally, it has all three in the

end’, we observe a propensity on the students’ parts to narrate the detainee’s death –

only to lament a common human sadness, desperation and madness of the detainee in

an almost Romanticist manner. This might reflect the curriculum’s direction of

narrative-imposition on various texts – an example of this would be the humanist

study of the progression of a character or a broad theme. 

  

Apart from an imposing a narrative on the poem, some students also commented on

formalist technique such as imagery or repetition. A student observed the growing

absurdity of imagery as the poem continually develops while another notes that the

persistence and repetition of death imagery reflects the continuous torture and pain

experienced by the detainee. Another student even classified the different actions of

the detainee into categories of harm done, such as ‘injured’ or ‘suicide’ – although it

is unknown to what effect this categorization this is done, it does nevertheless reflect

a certain impulse to discern patterns that is commonly witnessed in formalist

readings. 

  

19

However, similar to the RP students, many of the Coral students found it difficult to

justify the use of techniques without just re-narrating the poem (albeit occasionally

being uncertain of the resultant requirement of additional details not provided within

the poem itself) – most could only conclude that the detainee or group of detainees

were going insane although there was no mention of the detainee’s sanity for such a

view to be fully justified. 

  

However, one student did make it so far as to suggest that the poem was a collection

of excuses given by a certain authority for the detainees’ deaths from the repetition

and also to suggest that the convolution of phrases highlighted the absurdity and

irresponsibility (‘eventually didn’t care about giving proper excuses’) of the

institution’s attempts to cover up the deaths just for a good public opinion. It was

certainly a pity that this student was probably not aware about colonialism and the

South African Apartheid in order for her to make a decisive link between the text and

the corruption of real-life institutions – the concept of which she was particularly

sensitive to within the text. 

  

However, as a whole, the Coral students still remain governed by humanist-formalist

impulses when faced with a text. It is interesting to note that out of the two mentions

of the word ‘apartheid’ (in the questions section), one is spelled wrongly as

‘aparthied’ and the student who spelled it drew an arrow out asking ‘wrong spelling?’,

in addition to the fact that apartheid or postcolonial concepts are never addressed in

the annotation question. This might indicate that the teacher, prior to conducting this

test, might have informed or prompted them about the concept of Apartheid –

however, the students were continually unable (or more fairly put, not familiar with

20

postcolonial methods of reading) to use this information given, thereby suggesting an

instinctive discrimination of extra-textual information (at least at this point of time in

their education). 

  

In an e-mail interview with Mdm. Norita Ali of Coral Secondary School, she

mentions that the way Literature is taught in Coral Secondary School is primarily

founded upon aspects of a text such as character, atmosphere/setting, tension and

suspense, the theme and the writer’s attitude towards different issues. She also says

that character is a particular entry point to a text from which teachers guide their

students. The student’s competency is assessed by his or her ability to ‘associate

elements of text with personal response’, closely related to the O Level requirement of

an ‘informed personal response’. She adds that other critical methods are absolutely

unnecessary in the secondary-school classroom as students are already grappling with

textual demands themselves and would merely confuse the students. She believes that

knowledge of other critical methods is unnecessary and unsuitable for students who

are at a level of not being particularly familiar with formalist technique itself

(presumably, she is on the same terms as Mrs. Patricia Nathan regarding the fact that

formalism is an entry point and the recognition that without formalism as a firm

foundation, no other form of criticism can take off).  

  

  

  

  

  

  

21

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 

Lending from information obtained from our interviews, survey-experiments and

review of literature, we seek to establish various causes and implications for the

dominance of formalism in Singaporean secondary literary education. There are five

general attitudes which one can adopt to account for the dominance of formalism: the

humanist, pragmatic, purist, positivist and political views. 

  

THE HUMANIST VIEW 

F. R. Leavis claims that a text is ‘inherently a moral evaluation of life”. Thinking

along such lines, a good critical approach should allow a reader to draw principles and

human ideals from a text, which can then be applied directly to his own life. If good

literature, as defined by Leavis, is literature which combines moral values of the past,

infusing them with the present and allowing the reader to pave the future, formalism

would thus be an appropriate tool in obtaining this information from a text.  

 

Since formalism focuses on a text as a self-contained aesthetic object, it is able to

devote full analysis to elements such as character development or thematic ideas

which will contribute greatly to a student’s moral self-understanding or self-

interrogation (for example, in Macbeth, a study on the ambiguity between fate

ordaining the prophecy of Macbeth and Macbeth committing a self-fulfilling

prophecy might lead a student to realise how thinking his/her actions are merely a

product of society/nature might be in violation of his/her own autonomy as a human

individual).  

 

22

In addition, formalism is also interested in genre theory, which has the immense

ability to bring common traits (whether positive or negative) of our human nature

together (as witnessed across a plethora of texts), and thus, allow us to celebrate our

humanity as well as to prevent ourselves from making similar mistakes committed by

those we find in literature. 

 

Since human lessons can be obtained from character, plot, thematic and genre

analysis, biographical or historical information is unnecessary and of little impact on a

student’s appreciation of a given text. Thus, taking a formalist approach would be the

optimal critical method in understanding our humanity – other approaches are

thoroughly irrelevant. 

 

As highlighted by Mrs. Patricia Nathan, from the study of Literature, students should

appreciate and grasp the human condition. The values which encompass the human

condition are of importance and worth in the study of Literature, as these values

transcend cultural or physical boundaries and can be applied directly to any individual

human subject. The support of humanism in Literature will allow students to be able

to apply their knowledge from a text to their own lives no matter what their

circumstances are. Thus, following such an argument that since the main aim of the

study of Literature is to understand the human condition and its encompassing ideals,

the study and approach should suit to pursue such a goal. And since it has been found

formalism is suitable approach to achieve such a goal, the study of Literature should

indeed be geared in a formalist approach. 

  

23

THE PRAGMATIC VIEW 

The humanist-formalist approach boasts a systematic and convincingly objective way

to assess the aptitude of literary students on the subject of Literature which many

regard as wildly subjective, moving away from the German Romanticist movement

often espoused in pre-19th century classrooms, focusing more instead on reader

responses, or as Edward Freeman, then a history professor puts it, “tastes and

sympathies” which were highly subjective. However, he and other like-minded

individuals felt that “examiners [needed to] have technical and [positivistic]

information to examine” – information which would provide examiners with an

empirical basis for grading students. This approach forms a basis for objective

grading, an objective assessment criterion as well as structured curricula wherein

teachers can allocate sufficient lesson time to cover different formal aspects of a given

text effectively (characterization, theme, plot development).  

  

The need for objectivity is particularly important in an education system which seeks

to provide for everyone without bias since the objective of assessments is to evaluate

the aptitude of its students against his or her peers. In order for such objectivity to be

attained, educators must set standards which would isolate the mode of assessment,

allowing the opportunity for every student to play on a level playing field, thereby

ensuring that the student is to be evaluated only by his or her response to the given

text (which can only be done effectively with a strict text-centered focus).

Consequently, educators who adopt such a system would be able to evaluate students

evenhandedly and efficiently, as compared to those who still accept responses that are

not formal in nature, as they are essentially subjective in nature. Such extra-textual

approaches would make it hard for educators to distinguish subpar answers from more

24

sophisticated ones since extra-textual elements are difficult to be quantified or

correlated to literary aptitude. However, the formalist method of assessment makes it

possible for examiners to evaluate a student’s ability based his/her sophistication of

thought with regard to the analysis of a certain text. Thus with a practical need for

objectivity and verifiability, and with formalism fulfilling these demands, educators

globally have resorted (and rightfully so) to the formalist approach in order to ensure

that the education they provide is fair and rigorous. 

  

The practical concerns by students participating in the educational system are also

easily addressed by a formalist approach to assessment. For a student, a primary goal

is to excel in any given examination through the attainment of a good grade. An

emphasis on formalism makes rubrics and structured marking guides easy to produce,

thus enabling the creation of a common platform upon which teachers’ expectation of

students’ performance are very clear. As a result, all students have a good chance of

getting high grades as long as they understand formalist techniques well enough

(which never change too much). Moreover, through our interview with Mrs. Nathan,

she states albeit regretfully, that along more academic considerations, it would be

impractical for a student to go beyond a formalist analysis of a text, which would

require much more effort, that a conventional formal analysis. Since students in

Singapore have not yet been able to attain the basic aptitude needed for formal

analysis, they would definitely not be able to cope with the significantly

heightened rigour of extra-textual analysis. Moreover, she remarks that the ultimate

goal of education in the classroom is the pen-and-paper test, as such pragmatically

speaking; students should direct their attention on what is needed to excel in the test,

that is, the formal approach. 

25

  

THE PURIST VIEW 

The critical analysis of Literature should be strictly limited and put into the

boundaries of the text, such that any elements outside of the text should be duly

ignored since they are ultimately irrelevant to the text.  

  

Cleanth Brooks, in his essay “My Credo”, explains that “studies of [the mental

processes of the author or reader foray into the fields of biography and psychology

and] describe the process of composition, not the structure of the thing composed”,

with which literary criticism should be primarily concerned (Brooks 74). In essence, if

one were to study Literature at all, it would be logical to let the subject grow

independently (which would ultimately result in the formalist rigour that we witness

in assessments of today) rather than letting it rely on other subjects (such as cultural

studies, psychology or epistemology – their direct parallels in the literary world

being postcolonialism, psychoanalysis and postmodernism) when there is no necessity

to. In essence, if students want to learn about elements outside of the text altogether,

they would not be coming into the field of Literature in the first place. 

  

Thus, the dominance of formalism in Singaporean schools can be justified with the

fact that Literature students should be brought up to think of Literature as a subject of

its own. Since the Singaporean education is sufficiently diverse to encourage critical

extra-textual thought on a text (although ultimately irrelevant to an appreciation of a

text), there is no necessity to introduce other elements into Literature classes which

should be about Literature purely. In fact, a clean divide of interest might be more

useful in ensuring that subjects will be chosen by students in their rightful forms – a

26

purist divide might be able to differentiate “pure” Literature students from students

who are perhaps more interested in cultural/media studies. 

  

As Mrs. Nathan mentions in her interview, students must ultimately have a firm

grounding in the text, since it cannot be refuted that any literary discussion at all will

definitely have to be based on texts. Thus, a rigorous formalist education will be able

to provide for all students a full understanding of texts (which, as aforementioned, is

by definition essential to the study of Literature) – if that is not enough for Literature

students who should primarily be interested in a text and its form/content, students

will ultimately still be able to discuss texts in a more enlightened manner when

bringing in extra-textual influences. 

  

THE POSITIVIST VIEW 

It is important that one adopts an inductive attitude towards literary criticism – as

critics, when one approaches a text, one should not operate from a priori principles or

assumptions when carrying out literary interpretation – instead, one should operate

objectively with whatever is strictly relevant to the study of Literature (which happens

to be a text alone). In other words, a formalist method is fully justified. 

  

I. A. Richards, in his seminal text Practical Criticism has put forth a fully inductive

critical method towards Literature which can be reconciled with formalist standards of

criticism in secondary school literary education in the current day. I. A. Richards,

after having put his students through an unseen poetry test without any titles or author

names, came up with the view that students were able to analyse and comment (only)

on four kinds of meaning – sense, feeling, tone and intention. This is particularly

27

similar to the SPECS template given by schools to guide students in poetry analysis –

specifically, purpose, emotion and craftsmanship. 

  

Thus, if formalism fits the shape of the critical method which is inductively derived, it

should rightfully be the dominant critical method. 

  

In addition, a positivist attitude towards Literature greatly increases the rigour of the

subject, allowing it to genuinely challenge and further literary minds. A rigorous

outlook upon Literature would be able to elevate the study of Literature to a status

comparable to the sciences and add far more value to the study than if the subject

remained at the Romanticist standard.  

  

THE POLITICAL VIEW 

The final, far more radical justification given for the dominance for formalism is the

political one – in essence, the institutionalization of humanism-formalism is a political

tool. 

  

The literary community has shown to be a particularly volatile group of people which

poses as a certain threat to the people in power. In Singapore, literature which

interrogate power structures and preconceived norms that the Government has to

maintain in order to legitimize its power and actions is constantly being produced. It

is evident that literature has a very political capacity. Therefore, there is a necessity to

prevent the majority of Singaporean citizens from obtaining interest in Literature.

Thus, there is a necessity to institutionalize a depoliticized form of literary criticism in

secondary schools. 

28

  

Firstly, formalism, as a critical method, can maintain a depoliticized view of

Literature in the eyes of students. Formalism necessarily rejects extra-textual

influences, and therefore also rejects political readings into a text. A trained,

conscious rejection of the consideration of political influences within a text would

lead to a citizenry which is less politically conscious and critical – while many in

today’s society are political, they are mostly politically influenced rather than critical

about their own situations. This merely leads to a perpetuation of power relations but

merely in different forms. This leads to a state in Singapore wherein both pro-

establishment and anti-establishment sides perpetuate unfair power relations. The lack

of political consciousness on a whole is able to keep the Singaporean population

silenced and to perpetuate power structures. 

  

Secondly, humanism, as an attitude, lends support to the Singaporean grand narrative

– that Singapore has lifted itself by sheer work out of third-world poverty and must

continue working indefinitely towards an unimaginably better reality. Firstly, the tenet

of humanism that purports that all human experience is essentially unchanging

convincingly unites people of different cultures together and thus maximizes

economic efficiency with a decrease in social instability. Secondly, the tenet that

purports that the human individual is transcendent across forces of society, experience

and language is also able to convince a citizen that he/she has free will even though

he/she ultimately acts by the unspoken/spoken laws of society, thereby maintaining

satisfaction in productively chasing after the “unimaginably better reality”. 

  

29

Thirdly, humanism-formalism as an episteme is able to mask very well the process

through which discourses vie for power before one emerges dominant. By making the

claim that all human beings are essentially the same, one is subconsciously brought to

believe that all human beings should conform to the dominant discourse. By flatly

rejecting extra-textual influences, one is also brought to instinctively reject

marginalized discourses. Therefore, in addition to its self-perpetuation, humanism-

formalism is able to preserve the mindset of the status quo. 

 

As a whole, these effects of the adoption of humanism-formalism lend political

support to the people in power. 

LIMITATIONS TO ARGUMENTS 

In spite of the strengths of the arguments made to justify formalism, they have their

various limitations which make them flawed and to a certain extent dangerous to

be fully appropriated for the cause of justification. 

Flaws in the humanist argument 

A main problem with the humanist argument is that the humanist premise of

‘foregrounding the human individual’ can be taken both in a political and apolitical

direction. The foregrounding of humanity does not necessitate a restriction of readings

to a formalist nature – instead the foregrounding of humanity can be argued to also

require the addressing of political concerns (such as groups of people being oppressed

by others) and alleviating of situations of injustice. Taken in this direction, extra-

textual concerns are completely legitimized – in fact, humanism would be in objection

of the unjust portrayals and reinforcements of cultural oppression, and a humanist

30

would be in full support of extra-textual readings which analyse such injustices in

greater detail than a formalist would, thereby reducing oppression done to certain

groups of people. 

  

Flaws in the pragmatic argument 

From a purely pragmatic point of view, there appears to be no apparent flaws in the

argument posited. However, we also have to recognize that this argument makes the

basic claim “literary education is a purely pragmatic cause” which can be refuted by

the claim that literary education should seek to enrich a student’s life and

understanding of the world around him/her instead of merely earning him/her marks

or securing his/her scholarship.  

  

Though positivism allows for an increased objectivity amongst epistemes, the formal-

positivist approach may still discount certain analyses of texts that may provide

readers with a deeper understanding of the text, as well as an understanding of the

various contexts that influenced the writer when conceiving pieces of literature,

ultimately leading to a more enriched understanding of the text itself, which is what

formalism purports to be the most capable of. Through our interview

with Mr James Koh, he explains that a formalist-dominated curriculum does not

stimulate critical thinking and self-reflexivity, since the primary focus of the

curriculum is the text, which needs to be central to analysis. Moreover, students will

not be able to see the value or relevance of Literature beyond academia, which may

explain the waning interest in the subject (the Year 4 batch had significantly more

literature students than the current Year 3 batch of students in Raffles institution).

Moreover, with the constant formalist-positivist approaches ingrained into the literary

31

curricula in Singapore, gearing students primarily for examinations, they will be

subjected to the quotidian humdrum of tedious exercises that require students to

regurgitate quotes on a specific subject matter. Students may, as a result feel that the

subject is irrelevant and untranslatable to life. 

  

Flaws in the purist argument 

A possible response to the purist argument is that one can remain interested primarily

in Literature even when considering extra-textual elements – in fact, in critical theory

curricula, there is still an evident focus on texts and their relation to extra-textual

elements (for example, in the Raffles Academy curriculum, even

though postcolonialism is taught in a way that seems divorced from Literature and

leaning more towards cultural studies, lessons still bring students back to Foe, the set

text, and postcolonial readings of it) 

  

Another claim that can be made in response is that purists assume that texts are

inherently apolitical. As a result, this can impoverish the reading and dangerously

depoliticize inherently political texts (for which the political will argue is the case for

every single text – since every text or discourse vies for epistemic dominance over

other texts or discourses) 

  

Flaws in the positivist argument 

While positivism claims to be an absolutely objective method of thinking, one must

not forget that it is, too, a method of thinking. There is nothing to say that the

metaphysics of presence is not an a priori principle – in fact, meaning (in the objective

sense that we tend to take it) has been recognized by some to be fundamentally

32

unstable. The fact that we communicate and operate our thought on the basis of

signifiers (whose relationships with the signified cannot be defined) means that

meaning can never be definite and is instead arbitrated by each different human

being’s physical experiences. Thus, this sheds the possible light that a fully

‘positivist’ reading is entirely impossible – when there is an arbitrary variable in the

meaning-making process, any interpretation of a text is fundamentally extra-textual.

Therefore, there is little cause for the dominance of formalism in this aspect of the

argument. 

  

Flaws in the political argument 

The claims made are very radical and cannot be backed up by any real evidence. This,

in itself, is a major flaw that causes us to question its validity. However, there are no

real ways to begin proving or disproving these claims, thus, the political argument

remains flimsy or unconvincing. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

33

CHAPTER 6: CLOSING 

Through the course of this report, the varying arguments put forth may have made the

report look rather polarized and lacking in direction – however, it is in our firm beliefs

that as a reader-critic, one has to be aware of the existence of different critical

methods and be conscious of the various biases they adopt. We began this research

project with the fundamental idea that we would always have to be in distrust of

critical authority and this is our duty to the project which we have attempted to the

best of our capacities to fulfill. 

  

34

REFERENCES

Brooks, Cleanth. "The Formalist Critics." The Kenyon Review 13.1 (1951): 72-81. Print.

Literature in English: Teaching Syllabus 2013. No ed. Singapore: Ministry of Education Singapore, 2013. Print.

35