The term affect has been variously defined across different theoretical frameworks, reflecting its complexity and the diversity of scholarly perspectives. Philosophically, affect is often traced back to Baruch Spinoza, who defined it as the capacity to affect and be affected, highlighting the dynamic interaction between bodies and their environments (Hogan et al. 15). Gilles Deleuze, drawing from his reading of Spinoza, described affect as a prepersonal intensity that marks the transition from one experiential state to another, emphasizing its role in augmenting or diminishing a body’s capacity to act (Wehrs and Blake 23).
In cultural studies, Brian Massumi has been a significant figure in affect theory, defining affect as a preconscious force that precedes and informs emotion. Massumi argues that affect involves processes and movements that constitute events, thus connecting affect to the potential for change and action (Wehrs and Blake 29). Similarly, Seigworth and Gregg describe affect as visceral forces that exist beneath or alongside conscious awareness, driving individuals toward movement, thought, or emotional shifts (Hogan et al. 48). From a psychological perspective, Silvan Tomkins, another foundational figure in affect theory, introduced a comprehensive framework that has deeply influenced the understanding of affect. Tomkins identified a set of primary affects—such as interest, joy, surprise, fear, and shame—that are biologically based and universal across cultures. He emphasized the autonomy of affect, suggesting that these affective responses are independent of, though can be influenced by, social and cultural contexts. Tomkins’ work laid the groundwork for understanding how affects operate as fundamental motivators of human behavior, bridging the gap between biology and psychology (Wehrs and Blake 45).
In terms of literary and cultural studies, Duncan A. Lucas, in his study of tragedies, offers a crucial differentiation between commonly used terms: affect, emotions, and feelings. Lucas asserts that while these terms are often used interchangeably, it is vital to distinguish them to avoid conceptual ambiguities. Affect refers to the preconscious, non-linguistic intensities that shape our responses to stimuli. Emotions are the conscious experiences and expressions of these affects, often culturally and socially constructed. Feelings, on the other hand, are personal and subjective experiences that result from the interplay between affect and emotion (Lucas 17). He further elaborates that affect operates at a fundamental, often unconscious level, shaping how individuals experience and interact with the world. Emotions provide the conscious, culturally mediated expressions of these underlying affects, while feelings are the personal interpretations and subjective experiences of these emotions. This tripartite model underscores the importance of recognizing the distinct but interconnected roles that affect, emotion, and feeling play in shaping human experience (Lucas 21).
As I and many literary critics believe, these conceptions of affect productively inform literary studies in terms of analytic utility by providing a lens or framework through which to analyze, interpret, and experience texts. Affect theory encourages critics to move beyond traditional linguistic and semiotic analyses to consider how texts evoke and manipulate bodily responses and preconscious intensities. This approach aligns with the idea that literature is not only a medium for conveying ideas but also a site for experiencing and eliciting affects.
For instance, Stephen Ahern emphasizes that literary texts strive to capture the multivalent forms of human experience, calling on critics to develop methodologies that account for how texts generate affective responses in readers, shaping their interpretations and emotional engagements with the narrative. This lens of affect allows for a deeper understanding of character development, narrative form, and the ways in which texts can influence readers beyond mere cognitive comprehension (Ahern 5). Incorporating affect into literary criticism also involves acknowledging the historical and cultural contexts that shape affective responses. As such, affect theory enables critics to explore how different periods and cultural settings influence the production and reception of literary affects, thereby offering a more nuanced and historically grounded analysis of texts (Hogan 3).
Works Cited
- Ahern, Stephen, editor. Affect Theory and Literary Critical Practice: A Feel for the Text. Palgrave Studies in Affect Theory and Literary Criticism, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
- Damasio, Antonio. The Feeling of What Happens. Harcourt Brace, 1999.
- De Spinoza, Benedict. Ethics. Simon and Schuster, 1949.
- Hogan, Patrick Colm. Affective Narratology: The Emotional Structure of Stories. University of Nebraska Press, 2011.
- Hogan, Patrick Colm, et al. The Palgrave Handbook of Affect Studies and Textual Criticism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.
- Lucas, Duncan A. Affect Theory, Genre, and the Example of Tragedy : Dreams We Learn. Palgrave Studies in Affect Theory and Literary Criticism, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
- Massumi, Brian. “The Autonomy of Affect.” Cultural Critique, no. 31, 1995, p. 83. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.2307/1354446.
- Tomkins, Silvan. Affect imagery consciousness: Volume I: The positive affects. Springer publishing company, 1962.
- Wehrs, Donald R., and Thomas Blake, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Affect Studies and Textual Criticism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.