Affective fallacy

Affective fallacy is a term from literary criticism used to refer to the supposed error of judging or evaluating a text on the basis of its emotional effects on a reader. The term was coined by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in 1949 as a principle of New Criticism which is often paired with their study of The Intentional Fallacy.

wikipedia/en/Affective%20fallacy

The affective fallacy is a concept in literary criticism, introduced by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley, that criticizes the practice of judging a work of literature based on its emotional effect on the reader. Instead of focusing on the reader’s subjective experience (what the text does), critics should analyze the text itself—its internal structure and linguistic elements (what it is)—to understand its meaning and value. This approach, central to New Criticism, promotes close reading of the text as an object.

Key Aspects of the Affective Fallacy

• Confusion of Poem and Results: The fallacy occurs when a critic mistakes the text’s effects on the reader (its results) for the text itself.
• Focus on the Reader’s Response: It involves deriving a standard of criticism from the psychological and emotional effects a text produces, rather than from the text’s intrinsic properties.
• Rejection of Impressionism: The concept argues against impressionistic criticism, which suggests that a reader’s emotional response is the ultimate indicator of a work’s merit.
• Internal vs. External Focus: Proponents argue that focusing on the reader’s feelings leads to subjective, relativistic judgments, whereas analysis should be based on the internal evidence within the literary work itself.

Origin and Context

• New Criticism: The concept of the affective fallacy was a foundational idea for New Criticism, a movement that emphasized formal analysis and close reading of literary texts.
• Companion to the Intentional Fallacy: It was developed alongside the intentional fallacy (which criticizes judging a work based on the author’s intentions) in the 1940s.

Criticisms of the Concept

• Some argue that it’s impossible to completely separate subjective responses from literary analysis, as readers naturally bring their own experiences and emotions to a text.
• Others contend that the concept oversimplifies the dynamic relationship between the reader and the text and that emotional responses can actually deepen literary interpretation.