Day: November 6, 2024

Introduction: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

“On Reading and Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc first appeared in 2022 in the journal SRAZ, contributing a critical discourse to the ongoing evolution of literary theory. Dolenc’s work re-evaluates the significance of literariness, especially as it is framed by the philosophies of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses the dynamic and often conflicting definitions of “literariness,” a concept foundational to understanding what makes a text “literary.” By examining how Derrida’s deconstructive reading and Deleuze’s event-based approach open possibilities for interpreting literariness, Dolenc suggests a shift away from rigid institutional definitions of literature. Her study implies that reading should move beyond merely verifying theoretical postulates and instead approach the text as a unique linguistic event. This reconceptualization challenges literary theory to continuously redefine its purpose, given the unsettled nature of what constitutes “literary” work, thus keeping theory itself in a state of becoming. This work is pivotal for its contribution to literary scholarship, as it underscores the necessity of theory to adapt and embrace the inherent indeterminacies within literary texts, expanding the discourse on how literature can be understood and valued within academia.

Summary of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

• Literary Theory’s Evolution and Limitations
  Barbara Dolenc examines the concept of literariness and its foundational role in literary theory, particularly through the lens of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. She addresses how traditional, institutionalized literary theory often struggles with defining its core objectives, partly due to the varying and conflicting approaches within the field. According to Dolenc, the complexity of literariness challenges literary theory’s sustainability, highlighting an inherent tension in defining “what is literature” amidst a “stiff competition” of theories (Dolenc, 2022, p. 35).
• The Concept of Literariness
  Dolenc delves into the genealogy of literariness, referencing Roman Jakobson’s view that “the subject of literary scholarship is not literature but literariness,” which underscores the search for what inherently makes a work literary. This focus, rooted in Russian formalism and structuralism, aims to isolate literariness from general aesthetics or philosophy, legitimizing literary study through specific methodologies (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36). However, the latter half of the 20th century, influenced by deconstruction, questioned literary theory’s authority to define literature’s essence, suggesting that “literary theories cannot seem to agree” on fundamental principles (Solar, 2014, p. 30).
• Deconstruction and the Literary Text
  The work discusses Derrida’s deconstructive perspective, which reframes literariness not as an intrinsic property of the text but as a construct of the “experience of literature.” Derrida insists that literature is defined through its openness to interpretation and connection to other discourses, challenging readers to see literariness as “a correlative of an intentional relation to the text” that evolves with each reading (Derrida, 1992b, p. 45; Dolenc, 2022, p. 38). This iterative and context-sensitive approach to texts allows literature to resist definitive categorization within the “literary institution.”
• Deleuze’s Sense of Event and Literariness
  Dolenc also explores Deleuze’s notion of “event” as a key component of literariness, viewing literature as a “bloc of sensations,” inherently dynamic and always in a state of “becoming” through the reader’s interaction. This idea positions literature as an experience of constantly shifting interpretations, produced rather than discovered, and driven by a “logic of inventing a style in literature” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 164; Dolenc, 2022, p. 39). According to Deleuze, the literary text, through its unique style and syntax, creates a “foreign language within language,” offering an eventful space for continuous and limitless reading.
• Redefining Literary Theory
  Ultimately, Dolenc calls for a literary theory that acknowledges its own instability and capacity for “deconstruction in aporetic experience,” which resists predefined methods and embraces the undecidable nature of literariness (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41). She argues that a renewed literary theory would prioritize the text’s singularity, focusing on how each reading becomes an event in itself, rather than reducing it to a fixed methodological framework. This perspective asserts that the potential of literary theory lies in its openness to reformation, embracing each reading as a unique encounter with the “unreadable” aspects of literariness.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Contribution of “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Deconstruction
   Dolenc extends Derrida’s principles of deconstruction to argue that literariness itself resists definitive categorization, asserting that literature is best understood as an “experience” rather than an essence. Through deconstruction, she challenges the institutionalized structure of literary theory, arguing that fixed methodologies limit the interpretive possibilities of texts. Instead, deconstruction enables a fluid, open-ended reading that values the singularity and unique event of each text (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1992b, p. 45).
2. Formalism and Russian Formalism
   Building on the Russian Formalists’ notion of literariness, particularly Roman Jakobson’s idea that literariness is “that which makes of a given work a work of literature,” Dolenc critiques the limitations of purely formalist approaches. She acknowledges the value of formalism’s focus on intrinsic elements within the text but critiques its inadequacy in addressing the dynamic interaction between text and reader. Dolenc’s perspective thus challenges formalism to accommodate the shifting and relational aspects of literariness (Jakobson, 1997, p. 179; Dolenc, 2022, p. 36).
3. Reader-Response Theory
   Dolenc’s emphasis on the role of the reader aligns with reader-response theory, which sees meaning as co-created through the act of reading. She argues that literariness is realized in the “intentional relation to the text,” highlighting the reader’s active role in creating meaning. This perspective reinforces the idea that literariness is not a fixed property but an event occurring through each unique engagement with the text, suggesting a reorientation of literary theory to foreground the reader’s interpretive experience (Dolenc, 2022, p. 38; Derrida, 1992b, p. 44).
4. Post-Structuralism and the Concept of Iterability
   Dolenc engages with Derrida’s concept of iterability, or the idea that a text can be detached from its original context and reinterpreted infinitely. By supporting the iterative nature of texts, Dolenc situates her argument within post-structuralism, which recognizes the openness of texts to various interpretations. Her focus on iterability highlights that literariness is not confined to the text’s original context, but instead gains significance through its potential for reinterpretation and transformation across contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 39; Derrida, 1982, p. 315).
5. Interdisciplinary Approaches and Cultural Studies
   Dolenc’s work advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, considering insights from philosophy, linguistics, and cultural studies. She argues that literary theory can benefit from embracing interdisciplinary methodologies, especially given how theories from Derrida and Deleuze challenge traditional literary norms. This openness to other fields reflects the evolving landscape of literary studies, where cultural studies, in particular, have reshaped literary theory to include broader social, ideological, and cultural contexts (Dolenc, 2022, p. 36).
6. Aporia and Institutional Critique
   Reflecting Derrida’s concept of aporia, or unresolved contradictions, Dolenc critiques the institutionalized literary theory for limiting interpretive possibilities by imposing rigid structures. She argues that literary theory’s current state, caught in an “aporetic experience of re-evaluation,” needs to evolve by embracing the uncertainties of interpretation rather than adhering to standardized methodologies. This perspective aligns with the critique of institutionalized literary studies and supports a more flexible, adaptive theoretical approach (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41; Derrida, 1981a, p. 70).
7. Theories of the Literary Canon
   Dolenc’s critique of canonical approaches in literary theory questions the traditional selection of texts deemed “literary” based on historical or aesthetic conventions. Her discussion opens up the canon to texts that may challenge or expand definitions of literariness, supporting a move toward inclusivity and responsiveness to contemporary cultural shifts. This re-evaluation encourages literary theory to reconsider its criteria for canon formation, enabling new texts and interpretations to gain recognition (Dolenc, 2022, p. 41).

Examples of Critiques Through “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

Criticism Against “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

• Overemphasis on Deconstruction
  Critics may argue that Dolenc’s heavy reliance on Derridean deconstruction limits her analysis, potentially overshadowing other valuable theoretical approaches. By focusing mainly on deconstruction and iterability, the text might neglect more concrete methods that could enhance practical literary analysis.
• Lack of Practical Application
  Dolenc’s theoretical discussions on literariness as an “event” or “experience” may feel abstract and difficult to apply practically. Critics might contend that her approach lacks clear guidelines or frameworks for real-world literary analysis, making it challenging for students or scholars seeking actionable insights.
• Marginalization of Traditional Literary Theory
  By critiquing formalist and canonical approaches, Dolenc risks sidelining established literary theories that many believe still hold relevance. Some may argue that her approach disregards the value of formalism, structuralism, and other traditional frameworks that continue to be instrumental in literary studies.
• Potential for Relativism
  Dolenc’s embrace of an open, reader-centered interpretation may lead to an “anything goes” mentality, where interpretations lack stability or accountability. This perspective could risk reducing literary theory to a subjective exercise, weakening its rigor and making it harder to establish any shared, objective understanding of texts.
• Challenges in Institutional Contexts
  Her critique of institutionalized literary theory might be seen as impractical, given that academic frameworks require structure and methodology. Critics could argue that Dolenc’s ideal of a continuously evolving theory disregards the need for standardized practices in educational settings, potentially complicating the teaching and assessment of literature.

Representative Quotations from “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “On Reading And Literariness: The (Im)Possibility of Literary Theory” by Barbara Dolenc

1. Dolenc, Barbara. “On reading and literariness: The (im) possibility of literary theory.” Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia: Revue publiée par les Sections romane, italienne et anglaise de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Zagreb 67 (2022): 35-42.
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
3. Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
4. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

“Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán first appeared in 1999, as part of the scholarly discourse around literary theory and its intersections with literary expression. Presented during the “Literatures of Theory” conference at Janus Pannonius University, Kálmán’s work delves into the fundamental ambiguity between literature and theory, questioning if and how theoretical texts can be read as literary works and vice versa. Kálmán explores this boundary by examining the stylistic and rhetorical features that could attribute a sense of “literariness” to theoretical discourse. His approach is notably inspired by Russian Formalism’s concept of literariness (“literaturnost”) but extends beyond by acknowledging the paradoxes that this theoretical-literary interplay evokes. Through examples such as Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons,” Kálmán illustrates the spectrum where theoretical texts can possess literary qualities and literary texts can engage with theoretical concerns. The importance of Kálmán’s insights lies in his assertion that analyzing the literary techniques in theoretical writing—such as metaphor, narrative form, and rhetorical structures—can reveal new dimensions of understanding. This work highlights the layered complexity in categorizing texts strictly as literary or theoretical and emphasizes that readers’ perceptions and interpretative frameworks play a significant role in such classifications.

Summary of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

• Conceptual Tension between Literature and Theory: Kálmán discusses the unavoidable “conceptual essentialism or fundamentalism” that arises when distinguishing between literature and theory. He suggests that boundaries exist but are often blurred, with theoretical texts possessing “textual, tropical or generic” qualities that can give them a literary essence.
• Literariness as a Construct: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s concept of literaturnost (literariness), Kálmán posits that while literariness is a “disqualified concept,” it still offers valuable insights. He proposes exploring “several levels of literariness” in theoretical texts, despite the lack of a definitive “core” of what makes a text literary.
• Blurred Boundaries in Theoretical Texts: Kálmán explores how certain theoretical works embody literary traits, suggesting that both literary and theoretical texts are crafted in a manner that may “deconstruct the distinction” between the two.
• Case Studies of Literary-Theoretical Texts: Using Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons” as examples, Kálmán shows how seemingly theoretical texts employ “highly poetized and rhetorized” language or narrative devices, suggesting a literary nature within theoretical discourse.
• Influence of Interpretative Traditions: Kálmán emphasizes the role of readers’ expectations and scholarly conventions in defining a text’s status, arguing that sometimes “it is the history of their interpretation, the tradition of understanding” that grants theoretical value to certain literary texts.
• Multiplicity of Reading Conventions: The paper examines the interpretative flexibility that allows texts like Nietzsche or Derrida’s works to be viewed through both literary and theoretical lenses. Kálmán highlights the “simultaneous function” of different reading conventions when engaging with such works.
• Exploration of Genre and Stylistic Choices in Theory: Kálmán points out the presence of genre elements—such as “dialogue in Plato or Diderot” or “lyrical structures in Barthes”—in theoretical texts, underscoring how these choices affect their reception as either literary or academic works.
• Challenges of Identifying Literariness: Kálmán notes the inherent challenges in categorizing a text as literary or theoretical, acknowledging that “we can never find the gist of literariness” due to the subjective nature of interpretation and the communicative context of each reading.
• Educational and Scholarly Implications: Lastly, Kálmán reflects on how emphasizing the literary nature of theoretical texts in academic settings may lead students to adopt more “subjective accounts” or “literary intertextuality” in their analyses, impacting traditional literary studies.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Contribution of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Russian Formalism and Literariness
   Kálmán revives and reinterprets the Russian Formalist concept of literariness (literaturnost’), arguing that theoretical texts can exhibit characteristics traditionally associated with literature. By suggesting that theoretical writing can be analyzed for “several levels of literariness”, Kálmán provides a framework where formalist concepts, such as textual structure and stylistic devices, can be applied to non-literary works, broadening the scope of Russian Formalism.
2. Structuralism and Semiotics
   Through his discussion of Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”, Kálmán contributes to structuralist and semiotic theories by showing how theoretical works can adopt structural literary forms. Barthes, a key figure in structuralism, is noted for his “long, sarmentose sentences” and “catalogues” that give his theoretical work a narrative-like flow. This suggests that structuralist approaches to meaning-making are themselves open to literary interpretation, expanding the way we view semiotic and structuralist texts as narrative-like constructs.
3. Deconstruction and Derridean Influence
   Kálmán’s work echoes Derrida’s deconstruction by challenging the essentialist binary of literature vs. theory. He notes that theoretical texts often blur the “distinction between discourses,” suggesting an inherent “deconstructive” quality within certain theoretical works. This aligns with Derrida’s view that textual meaning is always deferred and context-dependent, implying that the boundary between literary and theoretical texts is fluid and interpretively constructed.
4. Reception Theory and Reader-Response
   By highlighting the “history of interpretation” and “tradition of understanding” in how we classify texts, Kálmán’s work contributes to Reception Theory. He argues that our perception of a text as literary or theoretical is influenced by “reading conventions” and the interpretive history surrounding it. This aligns with Reception Theory, which asserts that meaning is created by the reader, not fixed within the text. Kálmán’s examples, such as Borges’s “Pierre Ménard”, reinforce the idea that reader perception plays a central role in determining a text’s classification.
5. Intertextuality and Dialogism
   Kálmán’s notion that theoretical texts incorporate “intertextual references” resonates with Bakhtin’s dialogism, where all texts are viewed as interconnected dialogues with other texts. By examining how theoretical texts reference literary works and genres (e.g., Nietzsche and Derrida), Kálmán illustrates the dialogic nature of theory and its dependence on other texts for meaning, suggesting that theoretical texts are not isolated but part of a broader literary conversation.
6. Aesthetic Theory and the Essay Tradition
   Kálmán explores the aesthetic dimension of theoretical writing, drawing on the essay tradition from Montaigne to Barthes. By examining the “artistic qualities” in theoretical texts, he contributes to Aesthetic Theory, positing that theory can be appreciated not only for intellectual content but also for form and beauty. This aligns theoretical discourse with the aesthetic focus of literature, allowing theoretical works to be seen as stylistically sophisticated artifacts.
7. Postmodernism and Genre Blurring
   Kálmán’s analysis aligns with postmodernism, especially its skepticism toward rigid genre classifications. By discussing how texts like Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Canon Confidential” can be both a “theoretical work” and a “pastime entertainment”, he supports a postmodern view that challenges the separation of high and low culture, theory and fiction, and narrative and exposition, encouraging a more integrated understanding of textual forms.

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

Criticism Against “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

• Ambiguity in Defining Literariness: Kálmán’s exploration relies on the concept of “literariness” from Russian Formalism, which he acknowledges as “disqualified.” Critics argue that this undefined and ambiguous concept weakens his analysis, making it difficult to establish a clear distinction between literary and theoretical elements.
• Overextension of Literary Qualities to Theory: Kálmán’s attempt to find literary qualities in theoretical texts is sometimes seen as forced or overstretched. Some critics suggest that not all rhetorical or structural elements in theory equate to literariness and that his approach may exaggerate the artistic aspects of theoretical writing.
• Lack of Practical Application or Typology: Although Kálmán proposes that theoretical texts can be systematically reviewed for their literary traits, he does not offer a concrete typology or framework to evaluate these traits consistently. This omission limits the practical applicability of his ideas, leaving readers without a clear method for analysis.
• Potential Undermining of Theoretical Rigor: By emphasizing aesthetic and stylistic aspects in theoretical works, Kálmán risks downplaying the primary intellectual and logical functions of theory. Critics argue that this approach may lead to the perception that theory is judged more on style than on substantive content or argumentative rigor.
• Subjectivity in Reader Reception: Kálmán’s argument heavily relies on reader-response perspectives, suggesting that reader interpretation determines whether a text is perceived as literary or theoretical. This subjective approach may undermine the objective analysis of texts, as it implies that categorization is more dependent on personal perception than textual qualities.
• Challenges to Academic Boundaries: Kálmán’s blurring of literature and theory has faced criticism for potentially eroding academic boundaries. Some scholars argue that distinct disciplines serve important purposes, and merging them could dilute the unique methodologies and epistemological frameworks of both literary and theoretical studies.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán

1. Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1970, pp. 7–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468585. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
2. Brady, Patrick. “Chaos Theory, Control Theory, and Literary Theory or: A Story of Three Butterflies.” Modern Language Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, 1990, pp. 65–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3195061. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
3. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.

Introduction: “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

“Literariness, Consensus, or ‘Something Else’?” by Angela Locatelli was first published in 2004 in the journal Tropismes by the Centre de Recherches Anglo-Américaines at Université Paris X Nanterre. This work delves into the complex nature of “literariness” and examines whether literature’s uniqueness stems from intrinsic characteristics, social consensus, or other dynamics. Locatelli challenges the reduction of literature to either a self-referential art or an escapist diversion, emphasizing its epistemic and political relevance in a modern globalized context. Through her analysis, she addresses Russian formalist views on “literariness” as a distinct discourse, while also acknowledging the role of Cultural Studies in unveiling the political and libidinal dimensions of literature. Locatelli argues that neither the rigid abstraction of “literariness” nor the fluctuating “canon” fully encapsulates the literary domain, proposing instead that literature exists in a dynamic state where theories and texts mutually influence each other. This piece contributes significantly to literary theory by urging scholars to recognize literature’s multifaceted nature, underscoring how it transcends simple categorization and continues to prompt ethical, political, and intellectual debate.

Summary of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

• Epistemic and Political Relevance of Literature: Locatelli argues that recognizing literature’s specific epistemic and political roles is vital, especially as contemporary liberalism promotes vocational priorities over literary and ethical education (Locatelli, 2004, p. 173).
• Concepts of ‘Literariness’ and the Canon: She critiques Russian Formalism’s focus on “literariness” as distinguishing literature from other discourses, asserting that this view overlooks literature’s political and libidinal dimensions, which Cultural Studies emphasize (Locatelli, 2004, p. 174).
• Limits of Formalism and Cultural Studies: While Cultural Studies contextualize literature within broader culture, they risk diluting its distinct qualities; neither strict formalism nor pure consensus fully defines literature (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
• Dynamic, Dialogical Relationship of Theory and Literature: Theories and literature mutually influence and shape each other; literature is a source of diverse theories and resists singular definitions (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
• Expanding Canon through Social Consensus: Locatelli addresses debates on canon formation, highlighting scholars like E.D. Hirsch and Stanley Fish, who view literature as a product of social consensus rather than inherent qualities (Alexandrov, 2003, p. 42).
• Conventions as ‘Rules of the Literary Game’: Literature is recognized through aesthetic and social conventions that frame genres and expectations, but which are subject to historical shifts (Coco Davani, 1990, p. 176).
• Defamiliarization and Cognitive Value: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s defamiliarization (ostranenie), Locatelli emphasizes that literary devices disrupt norms, providing readers new perspectives and epistemic energy (Locatelli, 2004, p. 177).
• Relevance of Cultural Ideologies: She aligns literature with semiotics, psychoanalysis, and ideology, noting that literature either supports or critiques cultural norms, a perspective amplified by Cultural Studies and theorists like Gramsci (Lotman, 1990, p. 178).
• Canon and Pedagogy in a Global Context: Locatelli calls for a broader, yet critically evaluated canon, one that includes marginal voices without becoming ideologically rigid or predictable (Savage, 1995, p. 180).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

Contribution of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

• Shakespeare’s Hamlet
  • Locatelli’s view of literature as dialogical and perpetually resistant to fixed interpretation applies well to Hamlet. She would argue that Hamlet’s thematic depth and complex character motivations illustrate literature’s “insaturability,” as it “invokes and provokes” endless interpretations and challenges even the most sophisticated readings (Locatelli, p. 182).
• George Orwell’s 1984
  • Using Locatelli’s critique of the canon and ideology, 1984 can be seen as a work that reflects and critiques dominant ideological structures. Locatelli’s framework underscores how Orwell’s manipulation of language and the concept of “Newspeak” highlight the epistemic potential of literary devices to challenge readers’ stock responses and disrupt normative thought (Locatelli, p. 177).
• Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre
  • Through Locatelli’s non-essentialist approach to canon formation, Jane Eyre might be examined for its historical and ideological contexts, questioning why it entered the canon and how it resonated with various social ideologies. Locatelli’s views invite a critique that considers the novel’s changing reception over time and its impact on feminist and socio-cultural discourse (Locatelli, p. 176).
• Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis
  • Locatelli’s focus on defamiliarization, or ostranenie, as a cognitive tool can be applied to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Gregor Samsa’s transformation disrupts the reader’s stock responses to identity and humanity, aligning with Locatelli’s belief that literature offers a “fresh point of view” and uses literary devices to explore the psyche and societal norms (Locatelli, p. 177).

Criticism Against “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

• Overemphasis on Non-Essentialism
  • Some critics might argue that Locatelli’s strong stance against essentialist views risks neglecting intrinsic literary qualities that contribute to a work’s enduring appeal. By focusing heavily on social and ideological constructs, her approach could overlook universal aspects that make literature distinct.
• Limited Engagement with Canon Formation Challenges
  • Although Locatelli critiques the idea of a rigid canon, she may not fully address the practical challenges of balancing inclusivity with meaningful selection criteria. Critics could argue that her model lacks a concrete framework for reconciling the canon’s expansion with the need to maintain literary quality.
• Ambiguity in “Dialogical” Approach
  • While Locatelli advocates a dialogical relationship between theory and literature, some may find this approach too abstract or lacking clarity in practical application. This ambiguity might make it challenging to apply her framework consistently in literary analysis or pedagogy.
• Potential for Relativism in Literary Value
  • Critics may argue that Locatelli’s emphasis on cultural consensus risks promoting a relativistic view of literary value, where distinctions between major and minor works blur. This could lead to a situation where any text, regardless of its aesthetic or literary merits, could be considered significant solely based on cultural context.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli

1. Locatelli, Angela. “Literariness, consensus, or” something else”?.” Tropismes 12 (2004): 173-188. https://ojs.parisnanterre.fr/index.php/tropismes/article/view/359/447
2. Miall, David S. “Literariness.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. Routledge, 2015. 191-205.
3. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
4. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
5. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, literariness, and the brain.” Comparative Literature 59.2 (2007): 97-118.
6. Guillén, Claudio. “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters.” Comparative Literature Studies (1994): 1-24.

Introduction: “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

“Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All” by Niigaan Sinclair first appeared in the December 2015 issue of ESC: English Studies in Canada (Volume 41, Issue 4). In this seminal article, Sinclair explores Indigenous literary nationalism as a critical framework that highlights the cultural, political, and historical legacies inherent in Indigenous literature. Building on the foundational work of theorists like Muskogee Creek critic Craig Womack, particularly his influential book Red on Red: Native Literary Separatism (1999), Sinclair argues that Indigenous literature should be approached from within its own cultural and national contexts rather than through Eurocentric literary paradigms. This approach emphasizes Indigenous intellectualism and the role of literature in articulating Indigenous sovereignty, land relationships, and community histories. Sinclair’s theory has had profound implications for both literary and postcolonial studies, advocating for Indigenous scholars and writers to reclaim narrative authority and further the discourse on Indigenous nationhood, aesthetics, and self-determination. His work underscores a shift in literary criticism that not only enriches the understanding of Indigenous literature but also challenges and expands the boundaries of English studies in Canada and beyond.

Summary of “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Contribution of “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair to Literary Theory/Theories

• Expansion of Postcolonial Theory
  • Sinclair’s work contributes significantly to postcolonial theory by addressing the unique colonial experiences of Indigenous peoples and framing Indigenous literature as a tool for decolonization. He argues that Indigenous literary nationalism “redefines our understanding of North American nationhood, aesthetics, and history” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This challenges traditional postcolonial frameworks to include Indigenous narratives within their discourse, moving beyond Eurocentric perspectives on colonialism.
• Advancement of Indigenous Literary Theory
  • Sinclair’s article provides a foundational framework for Indigenous literary theory by establishing Indigenous literary nationalism as a distinct critical approach. This theory posits that Indigenous literature must be analyzed within its own cultural and historical contexts, allowing Indigenous “cultural, political, and historical legacies” to shape its interpretation (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). Sinclair’s emphasis on self-representation and sovereignty advances Indigenous literary theory by advocating for Indigenous-led scholarship and analysis.
• Influence on Cultural Sovereignty Theory
  • The article underscores the importance of cultural sovereignty by affirming the right of Indigenous communities to interpret and control their narratives. Sinclair advocates for Indigenous critics to engage with “the work of their ancestral communities” and emphasizes that literature should reflect Indigenous “land struggles, governance, and cultural struggles” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution promotes cultural sovereignty as a key component of literary analysis, especially for Indigenous texts.
• Reinvigoration of Activist Criticism
  • Sinclair’s call for Indigenous literary nationalism reinvigorates activist criticism by connecting literary analysis to real-world Indigenous struggles for land rights, cultural preservation, and political sovereignty. This “creative and critical call” urges Indigenous scholars to view literature not only as an academic exercise but as an expression of resistance and activism (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). His approach encourages scholars to see Indigenous literature as a platform for social change and political advocacy.
• Integration of Historical Continuity in Literary Theory
  • The article emphasizes the historical continuity of Indigenous storytelling, positioning Indigenous literature as part of a “continuous history” that links past, present, and future Indigenous experiences (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). Sinclair’s work encourages literary theories to consider historical continuity as central to understanding Indigenous narratives, contrasting with Western views of literature as a break from the past.
• Contribution to Decolonization Theory
  • Sinclair’s argument for Indigenous literary nationalism as a method of reclaiming narrative authority aligns with decolonization theory, which seeks to dismantle colonial structures within academia and literary criticism. He emphasizes that Indigenous literature “represents the voices, struggles, and perspectives” specific to Indigenous nations, advocating for a move away from colonial interpretative frameworks (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This approach encourages literary scholars to decolonize their methodologies and prioritize Indigenous voices in their analyses.
• Development of Nation-Specific Literary Identity
  • Sinclair’s theory contributes to the idea of nation-specific literary identity by advocating for Indigenous literature to be understood within the context of each unique Indigenous nation. He suggests that Indigenous literary nationalism allows each nation’s literature to “articulate, continue, and expand” its cultural legacy, creating space for a diversity of Indigenous voices (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution shifts literary theory toward recognizing the multiplicity of identities and histories within Indigenous literatures.
• Challenge to Universalist Literary Criticism
  • By emphasizing Indigenous literary nationalism, Sinclair challenges universalist literary criticism, which often applies a single framework to diverse literatures. He critiques these approaches for failing to respect the cultural specificities of Indigenous works, arguing instead for an “Indigenous-specific” interpretation that honors the unique “legacies of the Indigenous nation(s) they emerge from” (Sinclair, 2015, p. 18). This contribution calls for a more culturally specific, nuanced approach to literary criticism.

Examples of Critiques Through “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

Criticism Against “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

• Limited Accessibility for Non-Indigenous Audiences
  Critics argue that Sinclair’s emphasis on Indigenous-specific frameworks may make Indigenous literary nationalism less accessible to non-Indigenous audiences, potentially creating barriers to wider understanding and appreciation of Indigenous literature.
• Risk of Essentialism
  By focusing on Indigenous literary works through culturally specific frameworks, there is a risk of reinforcing essentialist views, where Indigenous literature might be seen as homogenous or as strictly defined by certain cultural traits rather than a diverse range of individual voices and perspectives.
• Challenges to Universal Literary Criticism
  Some scholars contend that by rejecting universalist approaches, Sinclair’s framework risks isolating Indigenous literature from broader literary discourses. Critics argue that this could hinder the integration of Indigenous perspectives into mainstream literary criticism and reduce cross-cultural dialogues.
• Potential for Exclusion of Hybridized Indigenous Voices
  Sinclair’s emphasis on nation-specific literary analysis may inadvertently exclude works by Indigenous authors with hybridized identities or those who incorporate non-Indigenous influences. Critics argue that this approach could limit the scope of Indigenous literary nationalism by not fully representing the diversity within Indigenous literatures.
• Overemphasis on Political and Activist Roles of Literature
  Sinclair’s approach could be criticized for focusing heavily on the political and activist roles of Indigenous literature. Some critics may argue that this focus detracts from the artistic and aesthetic values of Indigenous works, potentially limiting the ways in which these texts are appreciated and understood.

Representative Quotations from “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Indigenous Literary Nationalism: A Theory for All”by Niigaan Sinclair

1. Daniel Heath Justice. “Currents of Trans/National Criticism in Indigenous Literary Studies.” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 3, 2011, pp. 334–52. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5250/amerindiquar.35.3.0334. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
2. Adamson, Joni. “Indigenous Literatures, Multinaturalism, and Avatar: The Emergence of Indigenous Cosmopolitics.” American Literary History, vol. 24, no. 1, 2012, pp. 143–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41329631. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
3. Suzack, Cheryl. “Indigenous Women and Transnational Feminist Struggle: Theorizing the Politics of Compromise and Care.” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 10, no. 1, 2010, pp. 179–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41949685. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
4. SIMPSON, LEANNE BETASAMOSAKE. “THE SOVEREIGNTY OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ BODIES.” As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance, University of Minnesota Press, 2017, pp. 95–118. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt77c.10. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

“Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” by Rayson K. Alex and S. Susan Deborah first appeared in ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment in Spring 2019. The article explores the concept of ecophobia—a fear and alienation from nature—contrasting it with indigenous reverential eco-fear, a deep respect and caution toward the environment. Alex and Deborah investigate whether ecophobia is a modern phenomenon or if it also exists within traditional and indigenous societies. They discuss how indigenous communities maintain a profound relationship with the land through reverence and sacred rituals, describing this reverential eco-fear as a cultural mechanism that strengthens ecological bonds rather than separating humanity from nature. This reverence often blurs the lines between natural, cultural, and sacred elements, fostering what they term a “nature-culture-sacred continuum.” The article is significant in literary and ecocritical theory as it challenges binary distinctions between fear and reverence in human-nature relationships, suggesting that ecological ethics are culturally situated and vary across societies. It advances Simon Estok’s ecophobia hypothesis by contextualizing indigenous experiences and highlighting how modernity risks transforming reverential eco-fear into ecophobia, underscoring the importance of preserving indigenous environmental ethics in a rapidly modernizing world.

Summary of “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

• Ecophobia and Its Complexity
  • Ecophobia, as theorized by Simon Estok, is a nuanced, “case-by-case” phenomenon that cannot be distilled into a universal definition (Estok, 25). Alex and Deborah examine whether ecophobia is exclusive to modernity or if it has parallels within traditional societies, questioning its ethical and cultural underpinnings across diverse contexts.
• Eco-fear vs. Ecophobia: A Spectrum of Fear
  • Eco-fear is described as a form of respect and awe towards nature that maintains an “integrative ideology,” contrasting ecophobia, which is an irrational fear that separates humans from the natural world (Alex and Deborah, 422). Fisher’s concept of “deep fear of nature” acknowledges fears of natural disasters but does not equate this reverence with hostility, as seen in ecophobic mindsets (Fisher, 4).
• Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE)
  • Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE) is introduced as a cultural phenomenon among traditional communities, which fosters a sacred connection to nature through rituals and beliefs. In indigenous communities, IRE manifests through the sacralization of natural entities, blending fear, reverence, and respect to create a “nature–culture–sacred” nexus (Alex and Deborah, 423).
• Ethical and Sacred Dimensions of Reverential Fear
  • Reverential fear implies an ethical contract that strengthens human-nature relationships. The Latin root of “reverence” (revereri) embodies awe, fear, and respect, framing reverential eco-fear as both an ethical commitment and a spiritual bond with the natural world (Harper). For instance, the Santhal community’s rituals in India reveal a blend of fear for ecological elements and reverence for their sacred importance, as in the invocation of “Mother Jaher Era” (Patnaik, 97).
• Contrasts between Indigenous and Industrialized Worldviews
  • In contrast to industrialized views that often demonize nature, indigenous eco-reverence maintains a “nonhierarchical” and material relationship with nature. The Mudugar community, for example, views honey bees as protectors of sacred sites, embodying an integrated ecological ethic that preserves their land and cultural beliefs (Alex, 196).
• Impact of Modernity on Indigenous Ecological Ideologies
  • Alex and Deborah highlight the transformation of IRE into ecophobia under the influence of modernity and cultural assimilation. Indigenous communities in India, affected by colonialism and the pressures of modern lifestyles, face an erosion of traditional ecological ethics, exemplified by the poem “When You Do Not Return” by Robin S. Ngangom, which narrates the tragic separation of people from their native land and values (Ngangom, 198-200).
• Threat of Ecophobia on Indigenous Worldviews
  • The ongoing cultural and ecological disruptions threaten the sustainability of IRE as communities grapple with assimilation into dominant neoliberal ideologies. Alex and Deborah warn that as IRE fades, ecophobia may increasingly define indigenous worldviews, potentially severing the deep-rooted connections between humans and their ecosystems, leading to ecological and cultural degradation (Alex and Deborah, 427).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

Contribution of “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

Criticism Against “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

• Overgeneralization of Indigenous Beliefs
  The article might overgeneralize indigenous perspectives by presenting them as uniformly harmonious with nature, potentially overlooking the diversity and complexity within indigenous ecological beliefs, which may vary widely across regions and groups.
• Limited Scope in Application of IRE
  The concept of Indigenous Reverential Eco-Fear (IRE) is presented as a key framework, but its applicability outside of specific Indian indigenous contexts is not thoroughly addressed, raising questions about its universality across different indigenous cultures globally.
• Insufficient Attention to Practical Ecophobia Solutions
  While the article elaborates on the causes and cultural manifestations of ecophobia, it could be critiqued for not providing concrete solutions or strategies for countering ecophobia, particularly in modernized and urban contexts.
• Potential Romanticization of Indigenous Eco-fear
  By emphasizing reverential eco-fear as ethically superior, the article may inadvertently romanticize indigenous beliefs, risking a simplistic “noble savage” narrative that overlooks complex socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by these communities.
• Ambiguity in Defining Ecophobia’s Ethical Boundaries
  The concept of ecophobia is presented on a spectrum with biophilia, but the article could be critiqued for lacking clarity on the specific ethical boundaries and tipping points at which eco-fear transitions into ecophobia, leaving room for interpretative ambiguity.
• Reliance on Select Cultural Examples
  The article relies on a few cultural examples (e.g., the Santhal and Mudugar communities) without sufficiently engaging with other ecological practices from different cultures, which may limit the study’s broader relevance and comprehensiveness.

Representative Quotations from “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Ecophobia, Reverential Eco-Fear, And Indigenous Worldviews” By Rayson K. Alex And S. Susan Deborah

1. Estok, Simon C. “Theorizing in a Space of Ambivalent Openness: Ecocriticism and Ecophobia.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 16, no. 2, 2009, pp. 203–25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44733418. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
2. ESTOK, SIMON C. “Tracking Ecophobia: The Utility of Empirical and Systems Studies for Ecocriticism.” Comparative Literature, vol. 67, no. 1, 2015, pp. 29–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24694547. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
3. OPPERMANN, SERPIL. “Ecocriticism’s Theoretical Discontents.” Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, 2011, pp. 153–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44029514. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
4. Sobel, David. Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. Vol. 1. Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society, 1996.