Day: November 30, 2024

1. Introduction: The Status of Theory in English Studies

• Zebroski critiques the notion that theory in English studies has become obsolete, arguing against John Rouse’s assertion in College English that grand theoretical paradigms are nearing their end (p. 651).
• Rouse’s review of pedagogy-centered texts suggested the “next new thing” in English studies is pedagogy, specifically composition pedagogy, which Zebroski finds overly narrow and unrepresentative of the discipline’s diversity (p. 652).

2. Theory’s Alleged Decline and Its Ongoing Relevance

• Zebroski interrogates whether theory has genuinely exhausted its potential, challenging Rouse’s claim that it has had little impact outside academia and is losing relevance within it (p. 653).
• Gary Olson and Lynn Worsham, prominent voices in the field, reject the notion of theory’s decline. Olson frames recent tensions as a resurgence of “theory wars,” indicating a revitalization rather than a conclusion of theoretical engagement (p. 654).
• Zebroski argues that theory remains essential, particularly in addressing issues like social class, which have historically been marginalized in rhetoric and composition (p. 655).

3. The Persistence and Transformation of Theory

• While theory has evolved since its peak in the 1980s, it has dispersed into various subfields, influencing areas such as gender studies, disability studies, and electronic rhetorics (p. 665).
• Zebroski uses Janice Lauer’s concept of “diaspora” to describe theory’s migration into diverse domains, where it continues to shape intellectual work without centralized dominance (p. 664).
• The field has shifted from seeing theory as a singular, unified force to recognizing its fragmented and pervasive influence across disciplinary boundaries (p. 666).

4. Theory as a Site of Resistance and Controversy

• Zebroski highlights how theoretical work often challenges institutional norms, exemplified by Marc Bousquet’s critique of writing program administration and its alignment with neoliberal labor practices (p. 668).
• Historical examples, such as Linda Brodkey’s revisions to first-year composition courses, illustrate the political stakes of theory in disrupting conventional pedagogical and institutional practices (p. 669).

5. The Role of Foucault’s Discourse Theory

• Zebroski emphasizes the utility of Michel Foucault’s discourse theory in understanding how language practices are regulated and shaped by power relations (p. 672).
• Foucault’s framework helps reveal the systemic silences and exclusions within rhetoric and composition, particularly concerning social class and its entanglement with language (p. 673).

6. Social Class and the Need for Theoretical Engagement

• Zebroski argues that social class remains under-theorized in rhetoric and composition due to prevailing disciplinary discourses that separate language from power (p. 674).
• Without integrating theory, social class risks being relegated to external domains like sociology or economics, rather than being examined as intrinsic to language practices (p. 675).

7. Critiquing the Tropes of Diaspora and Exile

• Zebroski reflects critically on his use of “diaspora” and “exile” to describe theory’s current state, cautioning against romanticizing these metaphors due to their historical associations with violence and displacement (p. 676).
• Drawing on Edward Said’s reflections on exile, Zebroski underscores the dangers of trivializing the material and emotional losses inherent in these concepts (p. 678).

8. Conclusion: Theory’s Continued Importance

• Despite challenges, theory remains vital for interrogating entrenched power structures and addressing emerging global and disciplinary complexities (p. 671).
• Zebroski calls for a balanced approach, recognizing theory as one of many practices in the broader intellectual landscape of English studies, essential for fostering critical inquiry and innovation (p. 664).

---

References from the Article:

1. Rouse, John. “After Theory: The Next New Thing.” College English, 2004.
2. Olson, Gary A. “The Death of Composition as an Intellectual Discipline.” Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work, 2002.
3. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge, 1972.
4. Brodkey, Linda. “Writing Permitted in Designated Areas Only.” University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
5. Lauer, Janice. “Rhetorical Invention: The Diaspora.” Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention, 2002.
6. Said, Edward. “Reflections on Exile.” Harvard University Press, 2003.

Contributions to Literary Theory/Theories

• Expansion of Structuralist Literary Theory
  • Frank introduced the concept of spatial form, emphasizing how modern literature uses patterns and synchronic relationships instead of diachronic narrative sequences.
  • “Modern works took on aspects that required them to be apprehended ‘spatially’ instead of according to the natural temporal order of language” (Frank, p. 235).
• Integration with Reader-Response Theory
  • Frank argued that the reader’s experience of spatial form requires active participation to perceive the unity of a text, contributing to the understanding of the reader’s role in constructing meaning.
  • “The synchronic relations within the text took precedence over diachronic referentiality, and it was only after the pattern of synchronic relations had been grasped as a unity that the ‘meaning’ of the poem could be understood” (Frank, p. 236).
• Myth Criticism and Archetypal Theory
  • Frank connected spatial form with the mythical imagination, highlighting its role in creating timeless, universal patterns in literature.
  • “These contrasts were felt as ‘locked in a timeless unity [which], while it may accentuate surface differences, eliminates any feeling of sequence by the very act of juxtaposition'” (Frank, p. 239).
• Contributions to Modernist Studies
  • He provided a critical framework for understanding the formal innovations of modernist authors like T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, and James Joyce.
  • “In modernist texts, patterns of juxtaposed word-groups and fragmented syntax replace traditional narrative sequence” (Frank, p. 236).
• Intersections with Postmodernist Theories
  • By discussing dislocation of temporality and fragmented structures, Frank’s ideas foreshadow key postmodern concerns.
  • “The ambition of modern poetry to dislocate ‘the temporality of language’… culminates in the self-negation of language and the creation of a hybrid pictographic ‘poem'” (Frank, p. 233).
• Development of Comparative Literature Approaches
  • Frank explored the interdisciplinary connections between literature and visual arts, extending Lessing’s ideas on the temporal and spatial dichotomies in art forms.
  • “Following Lessing, I very carefully distinguished between the two as not comparable but showed that, within literature, structure required apprehension ‘spatially'” (Frank, p. 235).
• Revision of Formalist Theories
  • His focus on structural unity as an abstract model rather than a rigid rule offered a more flexible approach to form in literature.
  • “I specifically labeled this as the definition of a model. ‘This explanation, of course, is the extreme statement of an ideal condition rather than of an actually existing state of affairs'” (Frank, p. 233).
• Challenging Marxist Literary Criticism
  • By rejecting purely historical or ideological readings of literature, Frank defended the autonomy of formal analysis, positioning it against critiques by Marxist theorists like Robert Weimann.
  • “Weimann staunchly refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of any such experimentation and objects to the modernist mélange des genres” (Frank, p. 241).
• Historical Continuity in Literary Theory
  • Frank advocated for viewing modernist experimentation as part of a broader literary tradition, countering the notion of a sharp break with the past.
  • “Both may be seen, and should be seen, as part of a unified theory which has the inestimable advantage of linking experimental modernism with the past in an unbroken continuity” (Frank, p. 251).

Engagement with Criticism

• Frank addresses Frank Kermode’s critiques and clarifies misconceptions about spatial form, emphasizing its role as a paradoxical yet critical concept to highlight the tension between temporality and intemporality in modern literature (Frank, 1978, p. 275).
• The debate advanced understanding of spatial form, moving beyond rigid dismissals of the concept as outdated or irrelevant (p. 276).

Modernism and Political Associations

• Frank counters Kermode’s assertion linking modernism with the extreme Right, highlighting the avant-garde’s alignment with libertarian and anarchist ideologies (p. 277).
• This political dimension underscores the complexity of cultural and artistic movements and their diverse associations (p. 278).

Theoretical Refinements

• Frank reflects on critiques, particularly the need to differentiate physical and psychological time in spatial form analysis. This oversight stems from focusing too narrowly on Nightwood (p. 278).
• He acknowledges the broader applicability of spatial form to avant-garde narratives like those of Joyce, Woolf, and Faulkner, which dislocate linear temporality to explore consciousness and memory (p. 279).

Integration with Structuralism and Linguistics

• The essay situates spatial form within developments in structural linguistics, information theory, and French structuralism, drawing on Roman Jakobson and Saussure (p. 280).
• Jakobson’s “space-logic” aligns with Frank’s idea of self-referential textual structures, further grounding spatial form in linguistic theory (p. 281).

Spatial Form in Poetry and the Novel

• While initially linked with poetry, spatial form is most impactful in narratives, particularly in modernist and avant-garde experiments that disrupt temporal order (p. 282).
• Frank examines how authors like Sterne and Proust use spatial techniques to reorganize plot and narrative sequence, contrasting “story” (chronological events) with “plot” (artistic arrangement) (p. 283).

Contributions of the Russian Formalists

• Drawing on Viktor Shklovsky and Boris Tomashevsky, Frank highlights the tension between “bound motifs” (chronological events) and “free motifs” (artistic elements) in narrative structure (p. 284).
• This distinction reinforces spatial form as intrinsic to the novel’s development, challenging the dominance of causal-chronological storytelling (p. 285).

Influence of French Theorists

• Gérard Genette’s analysis bridges spatial form with broader narrative techniques, highlighting the balance between narration (temporal) and description (spatial) (p. 286).
• Genette’s terms like discours and récit expand the theoretical framework, linking shifts in narrative emphasis to evolving literary trends (p. 287).

Implications for Literary Analysis

• Frank situates spatial form within a larger theoretical landscape, noting its influence on reader engagement, which requires re-reading to grasp non-linear narrative relationships (p. 289).
• The concept encapsulates the synchronic dimensions of literary texts, bridging narrative temporality with modernist disruptions (p. 290).

1. Expansion of Modernist Literary Analysis

• Integration with Modernist Techniques: Frank situates spatial form as a hallmark of modernist experimentation, especially in the works of Joyce, Woolf, and Proust. He shows how modernist texts abandon linear temporality in favor of simultaneous relationships between narrative elements (Frank, 1978, p. 279).
• Focus on Intemporality: The essay highlights how spatial form underscores the “immanence of the intemporal in the temporal,” capturing modernist literature’s tension with time and history (p. 276).

---

2. Alignment with Russian Formalism

• Story vs. Plot Distinction: Frank draws on the Russian Formalists’ distinction between “story” (chronological sequence) and “plot” (artistic arrangement) to define spatial form as an intrinsic feature of narrative construction (p. 283).
• Bound and Free Motifs: Borrowing from Tomashevsky, he uses “bound motifs” (causal-chronological elements) and “free motifs” (elements open to artistic manipulation) to discuss how spatial form enables creative flexibility in narrative (p. 284).

---

3. Engagement with Structuralism and Linguistics

• Influence of Saussure: Frank links spatial form to Saussure’s concept of language as a system of differential relations, arguing that meaning in modernist texts derives from internal textual relationships rather than external referentiality (p. 280).
• Jakobson’s Principle of Equivalence: He connects spatial form to Jakobson’s theory of poetic language, emphasizing how “equivalence” disrupts syntactical linearity to create spatial relationships in texts (p. 281).

---

4. Reconceptualization of Narrative

• Temporal Disruptions: Frank explores narrative techniques like anachrony (e.g., flashbacks and flash-forwards) and time shifts, which spatialize narrative by challenging linear progression (p. 289).
• Role of Description and Narration: Drawing from Genette, he highlights the balance between narration (temporal) and description (spatial), showing how description acquires structural importance in modernist and postmodernist texts (p. 286).

---

5. Contribution to Poetics

• Space-Logic in Poetry: Frank extends the concept of spatial form to poetry, arguing that modernist poems prioritize intra-textual relationships over external references, creating a “space-logic” that aligns with structuralist theories (p. 281).
• Application to Narrative Spatialization: His work bridges the gap between poetics and narrative theory, showing how spatial principles operate across literary forms (p. 282).

---

6. Integration into Postmodern Theory

• Dissolution of the Self: Frank discusses the modernist and postmodernist emphasis on the loss of self, connecting it to the spatialization of narrative and the rejection of causal-chronological sequences (p. 278).
• Synchronic Reading: He anticipates postmodern readerly practices, advocating for re-reading and simultaneous engagement with a text’s holistic structure rather than linear consumption (p. 290).

---

7. Development of Comparative Literary Theory

• International Influence of Modernism: Frank demonstrates spatial form’s adaptability across cultural and linguistic boundaries, from Anglo-American modernists like Joyce and Woolf to Russian formalists and French theorists (p. 280).
• Cultural Synchronization: He contextualizes spatial form within broader cultural shifts, bridging literary theory with cultural and historical analysis (p. 277).

---

8. Connection with Phenomenology and Reader-Response Theory

• Focus on Reader Engagement: Frank emphasizes the reader’s role in constructing meaning through non-linear and spatial relationships in the text, prefiguring elements of reader-response theory (p. 290).
• Simultaneity in Reading: He parallels phenomenological perspectives by showing how spatial form engages the reader’s perception of time and space simultaneously (p. 290).

1. Overemphasis on Modernism

• Critics argue that Frank disproportionately focuses on modernist texts, potentially neglecting how spatial form functions in pre-modern and non-Western literary traditions.
• This narrow emphasis may limit the universality of the concept, confining it to specific cultural and historical contexts.

---

2. Ambiguity in Defining Spatial Form

• Frank’s definition of spatial form, though detailed, remains abstract and paradoxical, leading to difficulties in its practical application.
• Terms like “space-logic” and “intemporality” lack clear boundaries, making the theory seem overly theoretical and less empirically grounded.

---

3. Insufficient Attention to Reader Diversity

• Frank’s reliance on a highly intellectualized reader who can perceive simultaneity and engage in re-reading assumes a homogeneity in reader experience.
• Critics suggest this approach overlooks how diverse audiences might interpret texts differently, especially those unfamiliar with modernist conventions.

---

4. Underestimation of Chronological Narratives

• By emphasizing disruptions of time and sequence, Frank appears to undervalue the artistry and complexity of traditional linear narratives.
• Some critics see this as an implicit devaluation of historical storytelling methods that rely on chronology.

---

5. Overgeneralization Across Texts

• Critics note that applying spatial form to a wide range of texts risks reducing the nuanced differences between works and authors.
• For example, treating Nightwood and Ulysses under the same framework might obscure their distinct artistic intents and stylistic approaches.

---

6. Minimal Engagement with Emerging Digital Texts

• Frank’s essay does not address the implications of spatial form for digital literature, hypertexts, or multimodal works, which increasingly challenge traditional literary forms.
• This omission limits the applicability of his ideas to contemporary media landscapes.

---

7. Limited Engagement with Political Contexts

• While Frank counters claims linking modernism and right-wing ideologies, critics argue that he insufficiently examines how spatial form might intersect with broader political and social issues.
• His critique of Kermode could benefit from deeper political and historical analysis.

---

8. Dependence on Structuralism

• Frank’s reliance on structuralist theories like Saussure and Jakobson has been critiqued for being dated in light of post-structuralist developments.
• Critics argue that spatial form should be re-evaluated through more contemporary theoretical lenses, such as deconstruction or new materialism.

---

9. Neglect of Non-Canonical Texts

• Frank primarily engages with canonical modernist works, which some critics see as a limitation in demonstrating the broader applicability of spatial form.
• Exploring non-canonical or marginalized literary voices could strengthen the universality of his framework.

Historical Context and London’s Influence

• Karl Marx’s Das Kapital was written in London, a city central to the industrial and economic upheaval of the 19th century. Hall describes how London, despite being a hub for revolutionary ideas, offered Marx a refuge where he developed his seminal work (Hall, p. 5).
• Marx’s burial in Highgate Cemetery symbolizes his enduring legacy. The monument, erected in 1954, features his famous quote: “Philosophers have always tried to explain the world; the problem, however, is how to change it” (Hall, p. 5).

Early Life and Transition to Radical Thought

• Marx’s early life in Trier and his university education set the stage for his philosophical journey. Hall notes Marx’s expulsion from Bonn and subsequent academic struggles, illustrating the challenges that shaped his critical perspective on authority and societal structures (Hall, pp. 6-7).
• Marx’s financial dependence on Friedrich Engels and his family’s hardships in London highlight his personal sacrifices for his intellectual mission (Hall, p. 7).

The Creation of Das Kapital

• Marx’s life in poverty, marked by daily visits to the British Museum’s reading room, enabled him to develop Das Kapital over decades. Hall portrays the text as a culmination of immense intellectual and personal effort (Hall, pp. 8-9).
• The initial indifference to Das Kapital contrasts with its eventual global recognition. Hall explains that while early reviews were sparse, the work gained traction in the 1870s and was translated into multiple languages, solidifying its impact (Hall, p. 9).

Key Themes: Surplus Value and Worker Exploitation

• Central to Marx’s critique of capitalism is the concept of “surplus value,” which Hall describes as the cornerstone of Marx’s analysis. Surplus value arises when workers produce more value than they are compensated for, enabling capitalists to amass profit (Hall, p. 9).
• Marx observed the dehumanizing effects of industrialization, where workers were exploited by factory owners who benefited disproportionately from technological advancements. Hall connects this to the conditions of 19th-century England, with its “dark Satanic Mills” and urban poverty (Hall, pp. 9-10).

Relevance to Modern Society

• Hall argues that while the brutal capitalism of Marx’s era has transformed, the fundamental question of surplus value remains pertinent. The socialization of surplus through taxation and state redistribution reflects a shift from private exploitation to collective investment (Hall, p. 12).
• Examples from Soviet Russia, China, and Western economies illustrate the ongoing relevance of Marx’s ideas, even in non-capitalist contexts. Hall emphasizes how nations continue to extract surplus from labor to fuel development (Hall, pp. 12-13).

Marx’s Legacy and Misconceptions

• Hall acknowledges inaccuracies in Marx’s predictions, such as the inevitability of capitalism’s violent collapse. However, he argues that Marx’s insights into systemic inequality and the potential for societal progress remain profoundly influential (Hall, p. 13).
• The essay concludes by recognizing Marx’s compassion and vision for a better world, shaped by his critique of exploitation and his belief in human potential for transformative change (Hall, p. 14).

1. Limited Engagement with Marxist Praxis

• While Hall provides a comprehensive analysis of Marx’s theories, critics argue that the essay focuses heavily on theoretical aspects without adequately addressing the application of Marxist praxis in contemporary contexts.
• The discussion of surplus value and exploitation lacks exploration of how these ideas have been practically mobilized in social movements or policy reforms.

2. Overemphasis on Historical Context

• The essay dedicates substantial focus to Marx’s personal struggles and historical circumstances, potentially overshadowing the broader relevance of Marxist theory in modern ideological and economic critique.
• Critics might contend that this historical framing limits the essay’s applicability to present-day issues.

3. Insufficient Acknowledgment of Non-European Perspectives

• Hall’s analysis centers on the European and Western experiences of industrial capitalism, overlooking how Marxist theory has been adapted in non-European or postcolonial settings.
• This Eurocentric focus might exclude significant developments in Marxist thought as applied in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

4. Minimal Attention to Alternative Interpretations of Capitalism

• Critics note that Hall engages predominantly with the classical Marxist critique of capitalism, neglecting alternative perspectives or modifications within Marxist thought, such as those from the Frankfurt School or postmodern Marxism.
• This limits the essay’s engagement with more diverse interpretations of Marx’s legacy.

5. Lack of Intersectional Analysis

• The essay does not incorporate an intersectional approach, failing to examine how class exploitation intersects with race, gender, or other social identities under capitalist systems.
• This omission might render the analysis less relevant to contemporary readers seeking multidimensional critiques.

6. Idealized Portrayal of Marx’s Legacy

• Some critics may argue that Hall’s discussion borders on idealizing Marx’s legacy, downplaying the contentious or problematic aspects of Marxist implementation in political regimes.
• The discussion of surplus value and taxation glosses over instances where Marxist-inspired policies resulted in significant societal issues.

7. Underexplored Critique of Marx’s Predictions

• Although Hall acknowledges that some of Marx’s predictions, such as the inevitability of violent revolution, have not materialized, the essay does not deeply interrogate why these predictions failed or how they might be reinterpreted.
• This lack of critique might limit the essay’s contribution to advancing Marxist theory in light of historical developments.

8. Limited Discussion on Modern Economic Systems

• Hall’s treatment of modern capitalism focuses primarily on surplus value’s socialization through taxation but does not critically engage with globalized neoliberal capitalism and its deviations from classical Marxist models.
• This could be viewed as a missed opportunity to connect Marxist critique to contemporary economic realities.

9. Absence of Counterarguments

• The essay does not adequately address potential counterarguments or critiques of Marx’s theories, making the analysis less balanced.
• A discussion of opposing economic theories, such as those from Adam Smith or Keynes, could have enriched the essay’s intellectual depth.