“The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson first appeared in 1885 as part of his renowned collection, A Child’s Garden of Verses.
Introduction: “The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson
“The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson first appeared in 1885 as part of his renowned collection, A Child’s Garden of Verses. This charming poem, like many others in the collection, is characterized by its simplicity, rhythmic cadence, and vivid imagery. Stevenson captures the essence of a child’s wonder and fascination with the everyday world, using language that is both accessible and evocative. The poem’s focus on a seemingly mundane subject, a cow, is elevated through the use of playful rhyme and a gentle, affectionate tone. “The Cow” is a testament to Stevenson’s ability to find beauty and joy in the ordinary, a quality that has made his work enduringly popular with both children and adults.
Text: “The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson
The friendly cow all red and white, I love with all my heart: She gives me cream with all her might, To eat with apple-tart.
She wanders lowing here and there, And yet she cannot stray, All in the pleasant open air, The pleasant light of day;
And blown by all the winds that pass And wet with all the showers, She walks among the meadow grass And eats the meadow flowers.
Use of objects or ideas to represent something else
The cow could symbolize nature’s bounty
Adds depth and meaning to the poem, inviting the reader to interpret it on a deeper level.
Themes: “The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson
Appreciation for Nature’s Bounty: The poem celebrates the simple joys and gifts that nature provides. The cow, “all red and white,” is a symbol of abundance, offering her cream “with all her might.” This highlights the interconnectedness between humans and animals, and the appreciation for the sustenance that the natural world offers. The speaker’s love for the cow extends beyond mere utility; it’s a love born of gratitude for the simple pleasures of cream and apple-tart.
Freedom within Boundaries: Though the cow is tethered and “cannot stray,” she enjoys a life of contentment and freedom within her defined space. She wanders “here and there” in the “pleasant open air,” symbolizing the idea that even within limitations, one can find joy and fulfillment. This theme resonates with the human experience of finding happiness within the confines of one’s circumstances.
Resilience and Acceptance: The cow endures the elements, “blown by all the winds that pass and wet with all the showers.” Yet, she remains unfazed, continuing to graze and enjoy the meadow flowers. This speaks to the theme of resilience in the face of adversity and accepting the natural cycles of life. The cow’s ability to find pleasure despite the weather reflects a stoic acceptance of life’s challenges.
Childlike Wonder and Simplicity: The poem captures a child’s perspective, filled with wonder and affection for the cow. The language is simple and direct, reflecting the innocence and uncomplicated joy of childhood. The repetition of “pleasant” and the focus on basic sensory experiences like eating cream and apple-tart highlight the child’s appreciation for the uncomplicated pleasures of life. The poem invites readers to reconnect with their own childlike wonder and find joy in the everyday world.
Literary Theories and “The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson
Eco-Criticism: Eco-criticism is a useful lens for exploring Stevenson’s poem, particularly how it foregrounds the relationship between humans and nature. The depiction of the friendly cow all red and white and how She walks among the meadow grass emphasizes a harmonious interconnection with the natural world. This suggests a deeper commentary on human dependence on and affection for natural entities, challenging us to reconsider our interactions with the environment.
New Criticism: This theory emphasizes close reading and the intrinsic features of the text. In “The Cow,” phrases like She gives me cream with all her might, To eat with apple-tart highlight the formal elements of rhythm and sound, enhancing the poem’s aesthetic appeal. The deliberate simplicity in the structure and diction captures a childlike perspective, enabling a focused analysis of the text’s inherent unity and artistic merit.
Feminist Literary Criticism: Although not immediately apparent, a feminist reading might interpret the cow’s portrayal as a reflection on femininity and nurture. The lines I love with all my heart: She gives me cream with all her might could be seen as valorizing the nurturing role, traditionally associated with femininity. This perspective might argue that the poem subtly critiques how female nurturing roles are idealized and romanticized, yet confined and undervalued (‘And yet she cannot stray’).
Critical Questions about “The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson
How does the poem’s simple language and structure contribute to its appeal for children?
The use of basic vocabulary, short lines, and a consistent rhyme scheme (AABB) make the poem easily accessible for young readers. The repetition of words like “pleasant” and “all” reinforces key ideas and creates a soothing rhythm that is both engaging and memorable. The poem’s focus on concrete sensory details like “red and white,” “cream,” and “apple-tart” appeals to a child’s immediate experience and imagination.
In what ways does the poem idealize or romanticize the life of a cow?
The poem portrays the cow’s life as idyllic and carefree. The cow wanders freely in “pleasant open air” and “pleasant light of day,” seemingly unburdened by the realities of farm life or potential hardships. The poem emphasizes the cow’s positive contributions (providing cream) while omitting any reference to less pleasant aspects of its existence. This idealized depiction could be seen as a reflection of a child’s innocent perspective, or as a deliberate choice by Stevenson to evoke a sense of nostalgia and simplicity.
To what extent does the poem reflect broader themes about nature and the human relationship with animals?
The poem suggests a harmonious relationship between humans and nature, emphasizing the cow’s role as a provider and companion. The speaker’s affectionate tone towards the cow (“I love with all my heart”) hints at a deeper connection than mere utility. However, the poem also reinforces the traditional hierarchy between humans and animals, with the cow’s freedom limited by a tether. This raises questions about the extent to which the poem truly celebrates the natural world or simply reinforces anthropocentric views.
What deeper meanings might be found in the poem’s seemingly simple imagery and language?
While the poem appears straightforward on the surface, some images and phrases could be interpreted symbolically. The cow’s color, “red and white,” might represent a duality or balance within nature. The repetition of “all” could suggest the cow’s connection to the universal or the all-encompassing nature of life’s experiences. The cow’s wandering within boundaries could be a metaphor for the human condition, highlighting the limitations and freedoms inherent in existence.
Literary Works Similar to “The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson
“The Lamb” by William Blake: This poem shares a theme of innocence and nature, depicting a lamb as a gentle and pure creature in a manner similar to Stevenson’s affectionate portrayal of the cow.
“Fern Hill” by Dylan Thomas: Like “The Cow,” Thomas’s poem reminisces on the joys of youth and the natural world, evoking a sense of nostalgia and blissful ignorance of life’s realities.
“The Pasture” by Robert Frost: This poem, similar to “The Cow,” invites the reader into a pastoral scene that emphasizes simplicity and the soothing aspects of rural life.
“Daffodils” by William Wordsworth: Both poems celebrate the beauty of the natural landscape, with Wordsworth’s daffodils and Stevenson’s cow enhancing the human connection to nature through vivid imagery and emotional depth.
Suggested Readings: “The Cow” by Robert Louis Stevenson
The poem opens with this line, setting a visual and amiable tone that introduces the cow as a central figure. Eco-Criticism highlights the intimate, positive human-animal relationship depicted.
I love with all my heart:
This line reveals the speaker’s deep emotional attachment to the cow. Psychoanalytic Criticism might explore this as an expression of the childlike attachment and its deeper emotional significance.
She gives me cream with all her might,
Emphasizes the cow’s generous and nurturing nature. Feminist Literary Criticism can interpret this as a reflection on the traditional roles of females as nurturers in society.
And yet she cannot stray,
This line introduces a limitation to the cow’s freedom, despite the idyllic setting. Marxist Criticism could examine this as a metaphor for the working class’s restrictions under capitalism.
And eats the meadow flowers.
Closing the poem, this line symbolizes simplicity and contentment in nature. Eco-Criticism would view this as celebrating the symbiotic relationship between the cow and its environment.
“Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva was first published in 1980 as “Pouvoirs de l’Horreur: Essai sur l’abjection” in French, and later translated into English by Leon S. Roudiez in 1982.
Introduction: “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva
“Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva was first published in 1980 as “Pouvoirs de l’Horreur: Essai sur l’abjection” in French, and later translated into English by Leon S. Roudiez in 1982. It is a seminal work in literary and psychoanalytic theory, marking a significant contribution to the field of feminist criticism and post-structuralism. Kristeva introduces the concept of “abjection,” a state of being cast off or rejected, which challenges traditional notions of identity and subjectivity. The text explores the relationship between language, the body, and the psyche, examining how abjection manifests in literature and culture. “Powers of Horror” has been influential in shaping critical discourse around gender, sexuality, and the representation of the abject in various forms of artistic expression. It continues to be a touchstone for scholars and critics interested in the intersections of psychoanalysis, feminism, and cultural studies.
Summary of “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva
The Concept of Abjection in Literature
The author explores abjection, a profound sense of horror and repulsion, stating, “I have spelled out abjection.”
This concept is embedded within literature, reflecting a “fiction without scientific objective but attentive to religious imagination.”
Literature as a Reflection of the Apocalypse
All literature mirrors the apocalypse, existing on the “fragile border” where identities blur.
The works of authors like Celine, Baudelaire, Kafka, and Bataille are highlighted as examples, drawing on themes of identity and horror.
Celine’s Work as a Paradigm of Abjection
Celine’s work, influenced by the Second World War, exemplifies the extremities of abjection, affecting all spheres of life: “morality, politics, religion, aesthetics, or subjectivity.”
Literature, thus, serves as “the ultimate coding of our crises,” channeling the nocturnal power of horror.
Literature’s Role in Unveiling the Sacred and Abject
Literature is a space where abjection is not just resisted but deeply engaged with, involving “an elaboration, a discharge, and a hollowing out of abjection.”
This engagement reveals a maternal aspect, illuminating the writer’s struggle with demonic forces, seen as “the inseparable obverse of his very being.”
Modern Reluctance to Confront Abjection
There is a contemporary reluctance to face abjection directly, preferring to “foresee, seduce, or aestheticize.”
Psychoanalysts may interpret the “braided horror and fascination” of abjection, revealing the incomplete nature of the speaking being.
Demystification of Power through Abject Knowledge
Through an intertwined knowledge of forgetfulness and laughter, an abject knowledge, a significant demystification of power (religious, moral, political) is prepared.
This demystification is tied to the sacred horror of Judeo-Christian monotheism, with literature serving as the counterbalance, where “the sublime point at which the abject collapses in a burst of beauty that overwhelms us—and ‘that cancels our existence.'”
Literary Terms in “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva
A state of being cast off or rejected, often associated with feelings of disgust, shame, and horror.
Apocalypse
A revelation or prophecy of impending disaster or doom, often used to describe a literary genre focused on the end of the world or a catastrophic event.
Borderline Cases
Situations or individuals that exist on the edge or boundary of established categories, often challenging traditional definitions and classifications.
A word, sound, or image that represents or stands for something else, often used in literary and linguistic analysis.
Sublime
A feeling of awe or reverence inspired by something vast, powerful, or transcendent, often associated with nature or art.
Transference
The process by which emotions and desires are unconsciously transferred from one person to another, often used in psychoanalytic theory.
Uncanny
Strange or mysterious, especially in an unsettling way, often associated with a sense of familiarity and unfamiliarity at the same time.
Void
An empty space or nothingness, often associated with a sense of emptiness, absence, or loss.
Contribution of “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva in Literary Theory
Introduction of Abjection: Kristeva introduced the concept of abjection, a psychological and cultural phenomenon where the subject is confronted with the breakdown of meaning and the boundaries between self and other. This concept has been widely adopted and applied in literary analysis, particularly in discussions of horror, the grotesque, and the uncanny.
Psychoanalytic Approach to Literature: Kristeva’s work bridges psychoanalysis and literary studies, offering a new perspective on how literature can be interpreted through the lens of unconscious desires, anxieties, and societal taboos. This approach has influenced the development of psychoanalytic literary criticism and continues to be a valuable tool for analyzing texts.
Feminist Critique of Language and Representation: “Powers of Horror” challenges traditional notions of language and representation, highlighting how they are often used to marginalize and exclude certain groups, particularly women and minorities. Kristeva’s feminist critique has contributed to the development of feminist literary theory and continues to be relevant in discussions of gender and representation in literature.
Expanding the Scope of Literary Studies: Kristeva’s work expands the scope of literary studies beyond traditional genres and themes, encouraging scholars to explore the darker, more unsettling aspects of human experience. This has led to a greater appreciation for literature that deals with taboo subjects, such as violence, sexuality, and death.
Interdisciplinary Influence: “Powers of Horror” has influenced various disciplines beyond literary studies, including philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies. The concept of abjection has been applied to a wide range of phenomena, from social exclusion to political violence, demonstrating the broader relevance of Kristeva’s work.
Examples of Critiques Through “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva
Literary Work
Critique through “Powers of Horror”
Relevant Quote
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
The monster’s abject status as a being created from the dead and rejected by society reflects the horror of the “unnameable” and the breakdown of boundaries between self and other.
“The abject confronts us, on the edge of non-existence and hallucination, with our earliest attempts to release the hold of maternal entity even before ex-isting outside of her.”
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
Gregor Samsa’s transformation into an insect exemplifies the abject horror of the body’s breakdown and the loss of identity, challenging the stability of the symbolic order.
“Abjection is above all ambiguity. Because, while releasing a hold, it does not radically cut off the subject from what threatens it—on the contrary, abjection acknowledges it to be in perpetual danger.”
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
The descent into the Congo’s “heart of darkness” mirrors the journey into the abject depths of the human psyche, where societal norms and moral boundaries disintegrate.
“The abject is the violence of mourning for an ‘object’ that has always already been lost.”
Beloved by Toni Morrison
The haunting presence of Beloved, the ghost of a murdered child, embodies the abject horror of slavery and its traumatic legacy, disrupting the narrative and challenging the reader’s sense of reality.
“The corpse, seen without God and outside of science, is the utmost of abjection. It is death infecting life.”
Criticism Against “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva
Obscurity and Jargon: One common criticism is that Kristeva’s writing style is dense, complex, and relies heavily on psychoanalytic jargon, making it difficult for non-specialists to understand and engage with her ideas. This has limited the accessibility of her work to a wider audience.
Eurocentrism: Some critics argue that Kristeva’s concept of abjection is rooted in Western cultural and religious traditions, neglecting the diverse experiences and perspectives of other cultures. This has led to accusations of Eurocentrism and a lack of cultural sensitivity in her analysis.
Essentialism: Kristeva’s emphasis on the maternal body and its connection to abjection has been criticized for essentializing gender and reinforcing traditional notions of femininity. Some argue that her analysis overlooks the social and cultural factors that shape gender identity and experience.
Limited Scope: While “Powers of Horror” offers insightful analyses of specific literary works, some critics argue that its scope is limited to a narrow range of texts and genres. This has led to calls for a more diverse and inclusive approach to literary criticism that goes beyond Kristeva’s focus on abjection and the maternal body.
Contradictions and Ambiguities: Some critics have pointed out contradictions and ambiguities in Kristeva’s use of psychoanalytic concepts and her interpretation of literary texts. This has raised questions about the internal consistency and coherence of her theoretical framework.
Suggested Readings: “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva
Grosz, Elizabeth. “The Body of Significance.” Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana University Press, 1994.
Harrington, Thea. “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s ‘Powers of Horror.’” Hypatia, vol. 13, no. 1, 1998, pp. 138–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810610. Accessed 6 Aug. 2024.
KRISTEVA, JULIA, and Leon S. Roudiez. “POWERS OF HORROR.” Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, Columbia University Press, 2024, pp. 213–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/kris21457.14. Accessed 6 Aug. 2024.
Oliver, Kelly, editor. “Powers of Horror (1980).” The Portable Kristeva, 2nd ed., Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 229–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/oliv12628.15. Accessed 6 Aug. 2024.
Quotations with Explanation from “Powers of Horror” by Julia Kristeva
“The abject confronts us, on the edge of non-existence and hallucination, with our earliest attempts to release the hold of maternal entity even before ex-isting outside of her.”
This quote highlights the connection between abjection and the maternal body. Abjection is rooted in the early stages of development, where the infant struggles to differentiate itself from the mother. This primal fear of engulfment and loss of boundaries resurfaces in the experience of abjection.
“Abjection is above all ambiguity. Because, while releasing a hold, it does not radically cut off the subject from what threatens it—on the contrary, abjection acknowledges it to be in perpetual danger.”
Abjection is not a simple rejection or expulsion of the threatening object. Instead, it is a constant negotiation between attraction and repulsion, acknowledging the persistent danger and vulnerability of the subject.
“The abject is the violence of mourning for an ‘object’ that has always already been lost.”
Abjection is linked to the experience of loss and mourning, particularly for something that was never fully possessed or understood. This can be applied to various forms of loss, such as the loss of innocence, the loss of identity, or the loss of a loved one.
“The corpse, seen without God and outside of science, is the utmost of abjection. It is death infecting life.”
The corpse is a powerful symbol of abjection because it represents the ultimate breakdown of the body and the dissolution of the self. It reminds us of our own mortality and the fragility of our existence.
“I experience abjection only if an Other has settled in place and stead of what will be ‘me’. Not at all an other with whom I identify and incorporate, but an Other who precedes and possesses me, and through such possession causes me to be.”
Abjection is not simply a personal experience but is also shaped by social and cultural forces. The “Other” refers to the external forces that define and limit our identity, reminding us of our dependence and vulnerability.
“The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault was first published in 1971 as “L’Ordre du discours” and later translated into English and included in various collections.
Introduction: “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
“The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault was first published in 1971 as “L’Ordre du discours” and later translated into English and included in various collections. This inaugural lecture at the Collège de France is a seminal text in post-structuralist thought and has significantly influenced literary theory and criticism. Foucault’s exploration of the complex relationship between power and knowledge, and how discourses shape and control what can be said and thought, has been instrumental in analyzing the social and political implications of language and literature. “The Order of Discourse” challenges traditional notions of authorship, originality, and meaning, and has inspired new approaches to understanding literary texts as products of their historical and cultural context.
Summary of “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
Context and Ritual Acknowledgment: Foucault begins his inaugural lecture at the Collège de France by acknowledging his predecessor and mentor, Jean Hyppolite, indicating the ritualistic nature of such addresses which pay homage to past intellectuals. This acknowledgment serves as a starting point for his philosophical exploration, and a platform from which he questions the established norms, particularly his divergence from Hegel. He states, “Ritualistically, Foucault’s address pays homage to Jean Hyppolite, whose death made this position available and who was Foucault’s teacher at Lycée Henri IV and later his thesis supervisor.” This ceremonial gesture sets the stage for his critique of traditional discourse and its underlying power dynamics.
The Desire to Avoid Beginnings: In discussing his approach to discourse, Foucault reveals a preference for continuity over initiation, wishing to blend into an ongoing conversation rather than starting anew. This desire reflects a deeper discomfort with the conventional structures that frame scholarly discourse, emphasizing the constraints and expectations placed upon it by societal institutions. He articulates this sentiment by expressing a wish to have been preceded by a voice, to simply continue a conversation rather than commence it: “Instead of beginning to speak [prendre la parole], I would have preferred that speech itself surround me and whisk me off far beyond any possible beginning.” This statement underscores his critique of the formalities that govern academic and intellectual exchanges.
Discourse as a Controlled Entity: Foucault proposes that discourse within any society is heavily regulated through various mechanisms that serve to mitigate its inherent dangers and to harness its power. He identifies specific procedures such as exclusion, prohibition, and the division of true and false, which systematically control the production and flow of discourse. He hypothesizes, “I posit that in every society the production of discourse is simultaneously regulated, selected, organized, and redistributed by a certain number of procedures, whose role is to conjure away its power and its dangers, to master its chance events, to evade its heavy, formidable materiality.” This perspective highlights the intersection of knowledge, power, and societal norms in shaping the boundaries of what can be said or thought.
Prohibition and the Power of Discourse: Exploring the intersections of discourse with power and desire, Foucault delves into the societal and institutional prohibitions that shape the discourse landscape. He notes the taboo nature of certain topics and the selective permissions granted to speakers, stating, “We all know, of course, that not everything can be said, that you cannot bring up every subject in every context, and finally, that not just anyone can talk about absolutely anything.” This observation points to the selective and often restrictive nature of discourse, governed by unseen but powerful societal rules.
The Role of Madness in Discourse: Foucault reflects on the historical treatment of madness within discourse, where the mad were often silenced or paradoxically heralded as bearers of hidden truths. This dualistic treatment reflects broader societal mechanisms of control and exclusion. He illustrates this point by describing how, historically, “the madman has been the person whose discourse cannot circulate like that of others: his word was considered null and void, unable to authenticate an act or a contract…” This analysis not only highlights the marginalization of certain voices but also critiques the arbitrary lines drawn by societal norms around rationality and madness.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
Literary Terms/Concepts
Explanation and Examples
Discourse
The term “discourse” is central to Foucault’s work. It refers not just to spoken or written communication but to the broader systems of thought, knowledge, and power that shape and are shaped by language. In “The Order of Discourse,” Foucault discusses how discourses are produced, regulated, and controlled within societies.
Foucault emphasizes the interconnectedness of power and knowledge. Discourses are not neutral; they are tools of power that define what is considered true, normal, or acceptable. In the text, Foucault discusses how institutions like the medical establishment and the legal system use discourse to exert power and control over individuals.
Exclusion
Foucault identifies various mechanisms of exclusion that regulate discourse, such as prohibition, the division between reason and madness, and the will to truth. These mechanisms determine who can speak, what can be said, and what is considered valid knowledge.
The Will to Truth
The will to truth is a historical and social construct that shapes our understanding of knowledge and truth. Foucault argues that it functions as a system of exclusion by marginalizing or dismissing forms of knowledge that do not conform to its standards.
Discipline
Disciplines are systems of knowledge with their own rules, methods, and objects of study. They function as regulatory mechanisms for discourse by defining what is considered valid knowledge within a particular field.
Subjectification
Subjectification is the process by which individuals are made into subjects through discourse. It involves internalizing the norms and values of a particular discourse, which shapes one’s identity and behavior.
Event
Foucault emphasizes the importance of the event in discourse analysis. He argues that discourses should be seen as series of events rather than as expressions of underlying meanings or intentions.
Genealogy
Genealogy is a method of historical analysis that traces the origins and development of ideas, practices, or institutions. Foucault uses genealogy to understand how discourses have been formed and transformed over time.
Archaeology
While not explicitly mentioned in this text, Foucault’s earlier work focused on the concept of archaeology, which is a method of analyzing the underlying structures of knowledge systems in different historical periods. It complements the genealogical approach by examining the historical conditions that make certain discourses possible.
Author Function
The author function refers to the role of the author as a principle of discourse. Foucault argues that the author is not simply the individual who writes a text but a construct that is produced by the discourse itself.
Commentary
Commentary is a way of regulating discourse by interpreting and expanding upon existing texts. Foucault discusses how commentary can both limit and enable the production of new discourses.
Madness
Foucault discusses the historical exclusion of the discourse of madness from the realm of reason. He argues that this division is not natural but rather a product of historical and social forces.
Ritual
Rituals are formalized patterns of behavior that often involve speech acts. Foucault mentions rituals as a mechanism for regulating discourse by defining who can speak, what can be said, and in what context.
Doctrine
Doctrines are sets of beliefs or principles that are often used to regulate discourse within a particular group or community. Foucault discusses how doctrines can both unite and divide individuals based on their adherence to certain beliefs.
Social Appropriation of Discourse
This refers to the ways in which different social groups have access to and control over certain types of discourse. Foucault discusses how education and other institutions play a role in the social appropriation of discourse.
Contribution of “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault in Literary Theory
Challenged Traditional Notions of Authorship: Foucault questioned the idea of the author as the sole source of meaning in a text, shifting focus to the broader cultural and historical forces shaping discourse.
Emphasized the Role of Power in Discourse: He highlighted how power relations influence what can be said, by whom, and in what context, thus impacting literary production and interpretation.
Introduced the Concept of Discursive Formations: Foucault explored how different discourses (e.g., scientific, medical, legal) shape our understanding of the world and how these interact with literary discourse.
Promoted Historical and Cultural Contextualization: He argued for analyzing literary works within their specific historical and cultural contexts, rather than as isolated artistic creations.
Inspired New Critical Approaches: Foucault’s ideas led to the development of new critical approaches like New Historicism and Cultural Studies, which focus on the social, political, and historical dimensions of literature.
Questioned the Stability of Meaning: He challenged the idea of fixed meanings in texts, suggesting that meanings are fluid and subject to change depending on the context and the reader’s perspective.
Focused on the Materiality of Discourse: Foucault emphasized the material aspects of language, such as the institutions, practices, and power structures that shape and control discourse, influencing literary production and reception.
Examples of Critiques: “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice:
Exclusion: Foucault’s concept of exclusion can be applied to analyze how women’s voices and perspectives are marginalized in the novel’s patriarchal society. The limited discourse available to women characters restricts their expression and agency. Foucault’s concept of exclusion can be applied to analyze how women’s voices and perspectives are marginalized in the novel’s patriarchal society. The limited discourse available to women characters restricts their expression and agency.
Social Appropriation of Discourse: The novel reflects the social hierarchy of Regency England, where discourse and knowledge are controlled by the upper class. The Bennet sisters’ marriage prospects depend on their ability to navigate the social discourse of the elite. The novel reflects the social hierarchy of Regency England, where discourse and knowledge are controlled by the upper class. The Bennet sisters’ marriage prospects depend on their ability to navigate the social discourse of the elite.
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
The Will to Truth: The play explores the complex relationship between truth and power. Hamlet’s quest for truth about his father’s murder is entangled with questions of political power and legitimacy, highlighting the stakes involved in controlling the “true” narrative. The play explores the complex relationship between truth and power. Hamlet’s quest for truth about his father’s murder is entangled with questions of political power and legitimacy, highlighting the stakes involved in controlling the “true” narrative.
Discursive Formation: can be analyzed as part of the Renaissance discursive formation, where new ideas about humanism, individuality, and the nature of truth were emerging and challenging traditional authority.Hamlet can be analyzed as part of the Renaissance discursive formation, where new ideas about humanism, individuality, and the nature of truth were emerging and challenging traditional authority.
Toni Morrison’s Beloved:
The Division between Reason and Madness: The character of Beloved embodies the marginalized discourse of trauma and memory, which is often dismissed as madness. The novel challenges this binary by giving voice to the silenced experiences of enslaved women. The character of Beloved embodies the marginalized discourse of trauma and memory, which is often dismissed as madness. The novel challenges this binary by giving voice to the silenced experiences of enslaved women.
Genealogy: A genealogical approach can trace the historical roots of the trauma depicted in the novel, linking the characters’ experiences to the broader history of slavery and its ongoing impact on African American communities. A genealogical approach can trace the historical roots of the trauma depicted in the novel, linking the characters’ experiences to the broader history of slavery and its ongoing impact on African American communities.
Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude:
Discursive Event: The novel’s magical realism can be seen as a series of discursive events that disrupt traditional narrative conventions and challenge Western notions of reality and rationality. The novel’s magical realism can be seen as a series of discursive events that disrupt traditional narrative conventions and challenge Western notions of reality and rationality.
Author Function: García Márquez’s authorial voice, with its unique blend of historical fact and magical elements, creates a powerful and distinct narrative style that defies easy categorization and interpretation. García Márquez’s authorial voice, with its unique blend of historical fact and magical elements, creates a powerful and distinct narrative style that defies easy categorization and interpretation.
Criticism Against “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
Overemphasis on Power and Neglect of Agency
Critics often point out that Foucault’s focus on the ways in which discourse is controlled and regulated tends to overshadow individual agency. His model sometimes appears to leave little room for personal autonomy or resistance, suggesting that individuals are almost wholly shaped by the discursive practices around them. This can be seen as a deterministic view that underestimates the capacity of individuals to act independently of the structures that surround them.
Lack of Empirical Grounding
Foucault’s theoretical constructs, while compelling in their philosophical depth, often lack a solid empirical foundation. Critics argue that his claims about the mechanisms controlling discourse are not sufficiently supported by concrete examples or systematic data, which makes his theories difficult to test or verify. This criticism touches on a broader debate in social theory about the balance between theoretical abstraction and empirical research.
The complexity and sometimes opaque nature of Foucault’s writing can be a barrier to understanding and applying his ideas. His concepts of power, discourse, and knowledge are interwoven in ways that can be challenging to disentangle and apply in a straightforward manner. This ambiguity can make his work more open to misinterpretation and less accessible to those not already familiar with his philosophical framework.
Neglect of Historical Specificity
While Foucault emphasizes the historical variability of discourses, some historians and critics argue that he does not adequately account for the specific historical contexts in which discursive changes occur. They suggest that his model of discourse tends to flatten historical differences and overlook the unique ways in which discursive practices are embedded in specific social and historical contexts.
Ethical Neutrality
Foucault’s approach to power and discourse is often criticized for its ethical neutrality. He describes the mechanisms of power without explicitly condemning or endorsing them, which some see as a failure to engage with the moral implications of his analysis. This has led to debates about whether Foucault’s work offers any clear basis for critiquing social injustices or advocating for change.
Underestimation of Ideological Conflicts
Some critics argue that Foucault underestimates the role of ideological conflict and struggle in shaping discourse. By focusing on how discourse regulates and constrains, he might overlook the ways in which discourse is also a site of conflict and negotiation, where different groups actively struggle to define reality and truth.
Circularity of Argument
Foucault’s argument sometimes appears circular: if all knowledge is a product of discursive formations of power, then the very critique Foucault offers is itself a product of these conditions. This raises questions about the standpoint from which Foucault critiques society and whether his analysis can escape the constraints it describes.
Suggested Readings: “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
Davidson, Arnold I. “Archaeology, Genealogy, Ethics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, edited by Gary Gutting, 2nd ed., 219-241. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Mills, Sarah. “Discourse.” In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, edited by Gary Gutting, 2nd ed., 63-82. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Sawicki, Jana. “Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body.” In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, edited by Gary Gutting, 2nd ed., 431-458. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Quotations with Explanation from “The Order of Discourse” by Michel Foucault
“I would have liked it if behind me a voice was saying: ‘I must go on, I cannot go on, I must go on, words must be spoken as long as there are any left, I must speak them until they find me, until they speak me — a strange punishment, a strange offence, I must continue, perhaps it has already taken place, perhaps they have already spoken me.'”
This reflects Foucault’s fascination with the concept of authorship and the autonomous nature of discourse. He suggests that discourse is an ongoing process that exists independently of the speaker, shaping the speaker even as it is spoken.
“In a society like ours, we are all well aware, of course, of the procedures for exclusion.”
Foucault highlights how societies regulate discourse through exclusionary practices that define what can be said, by whom, and in which contexts. This governance of discourse reflects broader power structures and controls over knowledge and truth.
“I posit that in every society the production of discourse is simultaneously regulated, selected, organized, and redistributed by a certain number of procedures, whose role is to conjure away its powers and dangers, to master its chance events, to evade its heavy, formidable, materiality.”
Foucault introduces the central thesis of his lecture, which is that discourse is controlled and delimited through various institutional and societal mechanisms that prevent it from becoming a source of power or a danger to the status quo.
“The taboo of the object, the ritual of circumstance, the privileged or exclusive rights of the speaking subject: here we have the play of three types of prohibition, which intersect, reinforce, and compensate for one another, forming a complex grid that endlessly changes itself.”
This quotation explains the complex and multi-layered ways in which discourse is restricted. Foucault identifies three main forms of prohibition: the subjects that cannot be discussed, the contexts in which discussions can occur, and the individuals who are allowed to speak.
“Where, then, is the danger? Here is the hypothesis that I would like to advance this evening, so as to pin down the field — or perhaps just the exceedingly provisional theatre — of my work: I posit that in every society the production of discourse is simultaneously regulated, selected, organized, and redistributed by a certain number of procedures…”
Foucault theorizes that the “danger” of discourse lies in its potential to challenge and change power structures. He argues that controlling discourse is a means to maintain social order and prevent upheaval.
“There is another principle of exclusion that exists in our society: not a prohibition this time, but a division and a rejection. I have in mind the opposition between reason and madness.”
Foucault discusses how societal norms dictate who is rational and who is mad, thereby determining who gets to participate in discourse. This separation not only marginalizes certain individuals and ideas but also reinforces the authority of “rational” discourse.
