Month: November 2024

Introduction: “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins

“Rethinking Decolonization” by A. G. Hopkins, first appeared in Past and Present in August 2008, challenges conventional views on decolonization by extending the narrative beyond Asia and Africa to include the dominions of the British Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Hopkins argues that formal independence alone did not signify the culmination of decolonization. Instead, he highlights the post-World War II transformation of these dominions, marked by symbolic and substantive shifts, including the adoption of distinct national flags, anthems, and policies, as pivotal to the broader process of empire dissolution. This work is critical to literature and literary theory as it redefines decolonization, urging a globalized perspective that incorporates cultural, political, and economic dimensions. It underscores the evolving identities and independence movements of settler colonies and their role in reshaping postcolonial studies, linking them to larger global dynamics of nationalism, human rights, and globalization.

Summary of “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key References in Text
Decolonization	The process by which colonies achieve independence and redefine national identities, including ceremonial transitions like new flags and anthems.	Hopkins (2008, p. 211)
Dominions	Self-governing white settler colonies (e.g., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) that experienced delayed and distinct decolonization processes.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 212-214)
Britishness	A unifying cultural and ideological identity that dominated the imperial order, eroding in the dominions post-World War II as they adopted separate identities.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 236-237)
Civic Nationalism	A national identity based on shared civic values and multiculturalism rather than ethnicity or racial solidarity.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 236-237)
Imperial Globalization	A form of globalization during the empire that subordinated regions to a metropolitan center (Britain), integrating them hierarchically.	Hopkins (2008, p. 242)
Post-Colonial Globalization	A horizontal integration of global systems, emphasizing regional trade, human rights, and multicultural societies, replacing imperial hierarchies.	Hopkins (2008, p. 242)
Internal Decolonization	The process by which dominions addressed internal racial and indigenous inequalities, paralleling external decolonization in colonies.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 233-234)
Cultural Cringe	A term describing the dominions’ cultural deference to Britain, later challenged and replaced by local cultural production.	Hopkins (2008, p. 235)
Neo-Colonialism	The continuation of economic and cultural dominance by former colonial powers in newly independent states, often through informal means.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 241-244)
Human Rights	Universal principles of equality and dignity that challenged racial superiority and colonialism, playing a role in decolonization processes globally.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 234-235)
Economic Independence	The shift from imperial economic dependency to self-reliant, regional trade relationships in dominions post-1950s.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 237-239)
Imperial Patriotism	Loyalty and pride in the empire, which declined as dominions pursued independent national identities post-World War II.	Hopkins (2008, p. 228)
Ethnic Solidarity	The earlier imperial basis for identity, emphasizing racial and cultural homogeneity, replaced by multiculturalism in the dominions.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 236-237)
Assimilationist Policies	Policies aimed at integrating indigenous peoples into dominant colonial cultures, later abandoned in favor of recognizing indigenous rights.	Hopkins (2008, pp. 233-234)
Supranational Politics	Advocacy at international levels (e.g., UN) by indigenous and oppressed groups to gain recognition and rights, bypassing national governments.	Hopkins (2008, p. 234)

Contribution of “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins to Literary Theory/Theories

• Postcolonial Theory:
  • Redefinition of Decolonization: Challenges the traditional focus of postcolonial studies on colonies in Asia and Africa by incorporating the dominions as participants in decolonization, broadening the geographic and temporal scope of the theory (Hopkins, p. 211).
  • Cultural Identity Formation: Explores how dominions transitioned from a shared “Britishness” to distinct national identities, reflecting postcolonial themes of cultural autonomy and hybridity (Hopkins, p. 236).
  • Impact of Human Rights: Links the ideological underpinnings of postcolonialism with global human rights movements, demonstrating their role in dismantling racial hierarchies (Hopkins, pp. 233–235).
• Globalization and Cultural Studies:
  • Imperial vs. Postcolonial Globalization: Introduces the concept of “imperial globalization” as hierarchical and exploitative, contrasting it with “post-colonial globalization,” which fosters horizontal integration and multiculturalism (Hopkins, p. 242).
  • Decolonization as a Global Process: Frames decolonization as a response to globalization’s material and ideological shifts, challenging the Eurocentric narrative of globalization (Hopkins, p. 244).
• Historiographical Theory:
  • Revisionist Historiography: Revises traditional narratives of empire by treating the old dominions as integral to the decolonization process, advocating for a more inclusive historiographical approach (Hopkins, p. 212).
  • Interdisciplinary Insights: Bridges imperial history with sociology, political science, and cultural studies, emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary frameworks in historical theory (Hopkins, pp. 240–242).
• Cultural Nationalism:
  • Formation of Civic Nationalism: Demonstrates how dominions transitioned from ethnic-based nationalism to civic-based nationalism, aligning with theories on the evolution of national identities (Hopkins, p. 237).
  • Repatriation of Culture: Highlights the shift from colonial cultural imports to the development of national cultural narratives, supporting theories of cultural decolonization (Hopkins, p. 236).
• Critical Race Theory:
  • Racial Hierarchies and Decolonization: Investigates the erosion of racial superiority as a pillar of empire, paralleling CRT’s focus on dismantling systemic racism (Hopkins, p. 234).
  • Indigenous Rights and Resistance: Documents the role of indigenous movements in challenging assimilationist policies, resonating with CRT’s emphasis on indigenous sovereignty and justice (Hopkins, pp. 233–234).
• Post-Imperial Theory:
  • Dominion Decolonization as Post-Imperial: Proposes a framework for studying the dominions as post-imperial rather than purely postcolonial spaces, offering a nuanced lens for examining late imperial formations (Hopkins, p. 228).
  • Internal Colonialism: Introduces the dominions’ internal colonization of indigenous peoples as an extension of imperial practices, enriching theories of settler colonialism (Hopkins, p. 233).

Examples of Critiques Through “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins

Literary Work	Themes or Concepts Critiqued	Critique Through Hopkins’ Lens	Reference from Hopkins’ Article
“Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe	Colonialism and Indigenous Agency	Explores how Achebe’s depiction of the Igbo society’s cultural erosion parallels Hopkins’ argument about indigenous agency being integral to decolonization.	Indigenous movements as precursors to decolonization (p. 233).
“The Empire Writes Back” by Bill Ashcroft et al.	Postcolonial Reclamation of Language and Identity	Reframes postcolonial narratives by emphasizing the dominions’ struggle for cultural independence as equally significant to decolonization processes.	Cultural independence through national narratives (p. 236).
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad	Critique of Imperialism	Critiques Conrad’s portrayal of Africa as a site of European moral and physical degradation, contrasting it with dominions’ active resistance and transformation.	Evolution of identities within imperial hierarchies (p. 235).
“Midnight’s Children” by Salman Rushdie	National Identity and Decolonization	Analyzes Rushdie’s allegory of India’s independence through Hopkins’ view of globalization’s role in reshaping post-imperial identities.	Post-colonial globalization as a transformative force (p. 242).

Criticism Against “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins

• Overextension of Decolonization Framework
  Hopkins’ attempt to include settler dominions (e.g., Canada, Australia) in the narrative of decolonization has been critiqued as overly broad, potentially diluting the distinct processes and struggles experienced by non-settler colonies like those in Asia and Africa.
• Neglect of Economic Exploitation as a Central Theme
  Critics argue that Hopkins’ focus on cultural and symbolic shifts (flags, anthems) may downplay the enduring economic dependencies and exploitation that characterized colonial and post-colonial relationships.
• Insufficient Attention to Indigenous Experiences
  While Hopkins highlights the role of first nations in decolonization, critics note that his analysis may underrepresent the nuanced and region-specific challenges faced by indigenous populations in settler colonies.
• Limited Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
  The work has been critiqued for primarily examining decolonization through the lens of British imperial policy and settler colonialism, marginalizing the agency and perspectives of colonized peoples in non-settler contexts.
• Simplification of Globalization’s Role
  Critics argue that Hopkins’ framing of post-colonial globalization as a key driver of decolonization oversimplifies the complex interplay of local, regional, and global forces, including resistance to Western economic models.
• Comparative Weakness in Assessing Cultural Imperialism
  Some scholars believe Hopkins underestimates the pervasive influence of British cultural imperialism in dominions and its long-lasting effects on national identity, even after formal independence.
• Reduction of African and Asian Decolonization to Case Studies
  Hopkins’ primary focus on dominions might lead to the critique that decolonization in Africa and Asia is relegated to a secondary status, despite these regions being central to anti-colonial struggles.

Representative Quotations from “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The moment of decolonization is recorded by dates and signalled by ceremony: the guard, political as well as military, is changed; anthems are composed; flags are redesigned.”	Hopkins illustrates the symbolic nature of decolonization by emphasizing ceremonial aspects like flags and anthems. These serve as visible markers of independence but often obscure deeper continuities in economic and political dependencies.
“Canada’s national flag replaced the Union Jack in 1965 and a national anthem, ‘O Canada,’ was adopted in 1980.”	This emphasizes that even settler colonies like Canada, often considered independent earlier, underwent significant shifts in identity much later, challenging traditional timelines of decolonization.
“The term [dominion] was first applied in 1867 to describe the new Confederation of Canada… and was attached to Australia and New Zealand in 1907 and to South Africa in 1910.”	Hopkins critiques the concept of “dominion status” as an ambiguous compromise, highlighting how such terminologies created perceptions of autonomy while maintaining imperial subordination.
“Acquiring the ceremonial emblems of independence may have been, for them, merely a delayed tidying-up operation.”	This reflects the argument that settler dominions’ symbolic independence often occurred as part of a post-World War II reevaluation of imperial ties rather than as a direct response to anti-colonial movements.
“The impressive contributions made to the study of decolonization… have dealt almost exclusively with Africa and Asia.”	Hopkins criticizes existing scholarship for ignoring the decolonization of settler colonies, arguing that their exclusion creates an incomplete understanding of decolonization as a global phenomenon.
“Formal self-government did not confer full independence on the old settler colonies. It was only after the Second World War that they added substantially to the freedoms they had already achieved.”	This challenges the notion that dominions achieved independence early, arguing that true autonomy only came with cultural, economic, and political changes post-1945.
“The propagation and implementation of principles of human and civil rights undercut systems of domination based on claimed ethnic superiority.”	Hopkins highlights the role of global human rights discourses, which emerged after World War II, in undermining racial hierarchies and driving both decolonization and democratization.
“Imperial integration was vertical… Post-colonial integration was horizontal.”	This conceptual framework contrasts the hierarchical, dependency-based structures of empire with the egalitarian and multilateral relationships characteristic of post-colonial globalization.
“Post-war economic recovery was first assisted by established imperial relationships and then outgrew them.”	Hopkins explains that while imperial trade relationships initially supported recovery after World War II, they eventually became obsolete as new regional and global economic alignments emerged.
“Imperial systems are incompatible with the process of globalization as it has now unfolded.”	This statement encapsulates Hopkins’ argument that the rise of globalization fundamentally undermined the conditions that sustained imperial systems, leading to their eventual dissolution.

Suggested Readings: “Rethinking Decolonization” By A. G. Hopkins

1. Hopkins, A. G. “Rethinking Decolonization.” Past & Present, no. 200, 2008, pp. 211–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096724. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
2. Ward, Stuart. “THE EUROPEAN PROVENANCE OF DECOLONIZATION.” Past & Present, no. 230, 2016, pp. 227–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014553. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
3. Thomas, Martin, and Andrew Thompson. “Empire and Globalisation: From ‘High Imperialism’ to Decolonisation.” The International History Review, vol. 36, no. 1, 2014, pp. 142–70. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24701312. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri

Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory by Charles Altieri first appeared in the Spring 1976 issue of Criticism (Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 122-146), published by Wayne State University Press. The essay situates Wordsworth’s “Preface to the Second Edition of the Lyrical Ballads” within a framework of philosophical empiricism and idealism, drawing on Wittgenstein’s philosophical ideas to reinterpret Wordsworth’s naturalistic poetics. Altieri explores how Wordsworth’s theories challenge the dichotomies of nature and consciousness by emphasizing shared human experiences reflected in ordinary language and recurrent natural contexts. This analysis highlights the “Preface” as a pivotal contribution to literary theory, offering insights into aesthetic pleasure, the moral resonance of language, and the enduring role of memory. Altieri’s work underscores Wordsworth’s relevance in redefining the philosophical and ethical dimensions of poetry, bridging Romantic thought and modern theoretical concerns.

Summary of “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri

• Critique of the Nature-Consciousness Dichotomy: Altieri argues that Wordsworth challenges the rigid dichotomy between nature and consciousness posited by empiricist and idealist traditions. Wordsworth offers a concept of “the natural” that emphasizes human participation in linguistic and cultural activities rather than representation of external objects (Altieri, p. 123).
• Language as a Shared Activity: Drawing on Wittgenstein’s philosophy, Altieri highlights Wordsworth’s view of language as a communal activity rooted in repeated experiences and regular feelings, not merely an interpretative tool. Wordsworth’s language philosophy seeks direct engagement with ordinary speech and contexts (Altieri, p. 126).
• Poetic Language and Philosophical Grammar: Wordsworth’s poetic language is seen as more philosophical because it avoids abstract interpretations and instead depends on shared human contexts and interactions. Altieri connects this view to Wittgenstein’s idea of “philosophical grammar,” where meaning arises from shared actions rather than isolated mental acts (Altieri, p. 128).
• Pleasure and Aesthetic Experience: Wordsworth associates poetry with the generation of pleasure, aligning it with a broader sense of human harmony and community. This pleasure serves as a psychological and ontological bridge between subjective emotions and objective truths (Altieri, p. 133).
• Memory as a Constructive Force: Memory plays a central role in Wordsworth’s theory, reconciling subjective and objective dimensions of experience. It serves as a mechanism for transforming natural experiences into enduring truths and for preserving shared cultural values (Altieri, p. 137).
• Critique of Neo-Idealism: Altieri critiques critics like Geoffrey Hartman and Paul de Man for imposing a radical separation between mind and nature. He argues that Wordsworth offers a more integrative approach that avoids both sentimentalism and extreme abstraction (Altieri, p. 139).
• Relevance of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Wordsworth’s emphasis on ordinary language and shared human activities resonates with Wittgenstein’s critique of abstract philosophical systems. Poetry, in Wordsworth’s view, bridges gaps in human understanding by making ordinary experiences resonate with deeper meanings (Altieri, p. 136).
• Contrasts with Coleridge: Wordsworth’s focus on memory and recurrence differs from Coleridge’s idealization of imagination. While Coleridge seeks divine unity, Wordsworth finds coherence in human development and shared cultural practices (Altieri, p. 137).
• A Secular Vision of Grace: Wordsworth’s poetic theory culminates in a vision of secular salvation. Through the processes of loss, compensation, and recognition of life’s rhythms, humans can achieve a form of grace and shared understanding, encapsulated in autobiographical works like The Prelude (Altieri, p. 146).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference in Altieri
The Natural	Wordsworth’s concept of “the natural” emphasizes human participation in cultural and linguistic activities over representation.	p. 123
Philosophical Grammar	Inspired by Wittgenstein, it refers to the study of language through its use in shared contexts and human activities.	p. 128
Ordinary Language	Wordsworth’s advocacy for poetic language that aligns with everyday speech to reveal shared human experiences.	p. 126
Pleasure in Aesthetic Experience	The psychological and ontological harmony derived from poetry that connects subjective emotions to objective truths.	p. 133
Memory as Recurrence	Memory as a mechanism for connecting past experiences to present understanding, reconciling the subjective and objective.	p. 137
Rejection of Interpretation	Wordsworth’s critique of “interpretation” as overly abstract, favoring immediate recognition and engagement with language.	p. 129
Empiricism vs. Idealism	A critique of these traditional frameworks; Wordsworth offers a naturalistic alternative that integrates human activity and nature.	p. 123
Forms of Life	Wittgenstein’s concept used to illustrate how shared cultural practices form the basis for meaning in Wordsworth’s poetics.	p. 127
Aesthetic and Moral Language	The interplay between Wordsworth’s poetic language and its capacity to sustain human sympathy and communal understanding.	p. 136
Secular Grace	Wordsworth’s idea of finding fulfillment and coherence in life’s rhythms and shared human experiences without religious abstraction.	p. 146
Critique of Gothic Literature	Wordsworth’s opposition to extreme emotionality in Gothic literature for failing to connect with ordinary human experiences.	p. 136
Descriptive vs. Explanatory Language	Poetry as a form of description that elicits immediate understanding rather than abstract, systematic explanation.	p. 145

Contribution of “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory/Field	Contribution	Reference in Article
Romantic Literary Theory	Altieri positions Wordsworth’s Preface as a bridge between empiricism and idealism, emphasizing poetry as a natural activity that reveals shared human experiences.	p. 123: “Wordsworth invites us to rethink our familiar dichotomies.”
Ordinary Language Philosophy	Draws parallels between Wordsworth and Wittgenstein, arguing that language’s meaning arises from its use in shared human activities rather than abstract representation.	p. 128: “Wordsworth, at least in the theory of the ‘Preface,’ may be considered less a poet of nature than the poet of philosophical grammar.”
Phenomenology and Hermeneutics	Challenges interpretative approaches by emphasizing Wordsworth’s focus on immediate recognition and the lived experience of poetic language.	p. 129: “Interpretation is a second-order process which requires some first-order awareness.”
Ethics of Poetry	Proposes that poetry fosters communal values by deepening sympathies and promoting shared human experiences, rejecting the solipsism of subjective interpretation.	p. 136: “The essential test of good poetry…making them aware of what they share with others and thus deepening their sympathies.”
Memory Studies	Explores Wordsworth’s use of memory as a naturalistic alternative to idealist imagination, enabling reconciliation of subjective experience with communal significance.	p. 137: “Memory reconciles subjective and objective and balances intense participation with lawful reflection.”
Post-Romantic Criticism	Critiques idealist readings (e.g., Geoffrey Hartman, Paul de Man), advocating for Wordsworth’s naturalist epistemology and rejection of nature-mind dichotomies.	p. 138: “De Man’s world, like Sartre’s, is Nietzsche’s without Nietzsche’s superman.”
Aesthetics of Pleasure	Links Wordsworth’s poetic theory to Kant’s Critique of Judgment, arguing that aesthetic pleasure ties subjective experiences to universal human agreements.	p. 133: “Pleasure serves primarily as a psychological correlate…measuring the success of poetry as significant immediate knowledge.”
Cultural Role of Poetry	Redefines the poet as a “culture hero” who preserves latent moral forms within ordinary life, contrasting with Promethean notions of creativity.	p. 135: “The poet can be a culture hero precisely because he understands that there are latent in his culture…moral forms worth recognizing.”
Epistemology and Literary Studies	Frames Wordsworth’s poetics as a form of epistemological inquiry into how shared meanings and values emerge in cultural and natural contexts.	p. 128: “Meaning depends not on individual acts of mind but on the actions we learn to perform in language.”
Rejection of Gothicism	Critiques the Gothic tradition’s extreme emotionality and disconnect from ordinary life, advocating for a poetry grounded in shared human feelings and experiences.	p. 136: “Gothic literature…fails to provide real connections with people’s lives.”

Examples of Critiques Through “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri

Literary Work	Critique Through Altieri’s Reading of Wordsworth’s “Preface”	Key Reference in Article
Wordsworth’s The Prelude	The Prelude exemplifies Wordsworth’s naturalist poetics by integrating memory, loss, and shared human experience, avoiding idealist abstractions while grounding itself in natural patterns.	p. 136: “The Prelude reconciles subjective and objective… while eschewing interpretation.”
Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria	Critiqued for its idealist emphasis on imagination as transcendent; Altieri contrasts this with Wordsworth’s focus on memory as a bridge between associationism and idealism.	p. 137: “Where Coleridge used memory to refute associationism… Wordsworth used it to construct a bridge.”
Scott’s Waverley	Criticized for focusing on descriptive inventories rather than meaningful engagement with memory and natural patterns, leading to superficial representation rather than deeper poetic insight.	p. 137: “Scott’s method… fails to evoke the ideal and essential truth of the scene.”
Mallarmé’s Poetry	Altieri contrasts Mallarmé’s self-conscious linguistic complexity with Wordsworth’s pursuit of shared, immediate recognition of human experience through natural and cultural forms.	p. 145: “Mallarmé opens the realm of possibilities…but contrasts against natural procedures.”

Criticism Against “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri

• Overemphasis on Naturalism: Critics argue that Altieri’s emphasis on Wordsworth’s naturalism risks oversimplifying the tension between nature and imagination in Wordsworth’s work. The poetic imagination often transcends the naturalistic framework Altieri advocates.
  • Reference: Altieri’s critique of Coleridge’s idealism as less relevant overlooks the philosophical depth of imagination’s role in Romanticism (p. 137).
• Reduction of Philosophical Complexity: Altieri aligns Wordsworth with Wittgenstein and Whitehead, but some critics suggest this alignment oversimplifies Wordsworth’s epistemological and metaphysical frameworks, reducing them to mere practical philosophy.
  • Reference: The interpretation of “repeated experience and regular feelings” as philosophical grammar ignores broader metaphysical implications (p. 126).
• Neglect of Romantic Subjectivism: By focusing on shared cultural and natural patterns, Altieri minimizes the Romantic movement’s intrinsic focus on individual subjectivity and its complex role in shaping poetic meaning.
  • Reference: Altieri contrasts Wordsworth’s memory-focused poetics with Mallarmé’s self-reflective style but underestimates the value of individualism in Romantic poetry (p. 145).
• Limited Treatment of Coleridgean Thought: Altieri’s criticism of Coleridge’s idealism as overly abstract disregards the nuanced interaction between Wordsworth and Coleridge’s complementary theories, particularly on imagination and memory.
  • Reference: Altieri’s claim that Coleridge’s abstraction detracts from practical application fails to engage with the productive dialogic tension between their views (p. 137).
• Inadequate Address of Poetic Diction: Altieri’s naturalist focus undervalues Wordsworth’s debates on poetic language, particularly his critiques of artificial poetic diction and its role in shaping emotional immediacy.
  • Reference: The analysis of Wordsworth’s preference for natural language overlooks its artistic innovation beyond cultural habits (p. 135).
• Selective Engagement with Contemporary Theories: Altieri critiques de Man’s deconstructionism and Hartman’s apocalyptic idealism but does not fully address their contributions to understanding Romantic irony and self-awareness in Wordsworth’s poetry.
  • Reference: Altieri’s opposition to deconstruction does not adequately consider the insights it provides into Romantic self-reflexivity (p. 139).
• Oversimplification of Memory’s Role: While Altieri emphasizes memory’s role in Wordsworth’s naturalism, he may overstate its universality, neglecting how Wordsworth also uses memory for complex, introspective purposes.
  • Reference: Memory as “the mental analogy of natural recurrence” (p. 137) is seen as reductive by some critics who highlight Wordsworth’s more intricate psychological use of memory.
• Ambiguity in Practical Implications: Altieri’s argument for Wordsworth’s naturalism as an alternative to contemporary idealism or deconstruction lacks clarity in its practical application for literary criticism beyond Wordsworth’s specific context.
  • Reference: Altieri’s concept of “poetic grammar” as a critique of representation lacks concrete methodological guidance (p. 126).

Representative Quotations from “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Wittgenstein helps clarify Wordsworth’s thinking… to separate Wordsworth’s claim for a poetics of ‘the natural’ from his more sentimental insistence on nature as a source of meaning and value.”	Altieri aligns Wordsworth’s ideas with Wittgenstein’s philosophy to emphasize that Wordsworth’s concept of “natural” poetry is grounded in linguistic and cultural practices rather than mystical associations with nature, offering a practical framework for poetic meaning.
“Wordsworth invites us to rethink our familiar dichotomies, not to argue about which of them better fits his work.”	This highlights Wordsworth’s unique position in literary theory, where he transcends traditional debates like empiricism versus idealism, suggesting a synthesis that reflects the creative potentials of poetic imagination.
“Meaning depends not on individual acts of mind but on the actions we learn to perform in language and learn to recognize as significant when performed by others.”	Altieri echoes Wordsworth’s view of language as a communal, cultural activity, suggesting that meaning emerges from shared human practices rather than isolated intellectual constructs, reinforcing the poet’s role in reflecting collective experience.
“Memory is the mental analogy of natural recurrence.”	Altieri interprets Wordsworth’s concept of memory as a naturalistic alternative to idealist philosophy, where memory reflects the lawful patterns of nature, enabling poetry to connect subjective experience to universal rhythms and values.
“Wordsworth consciously tries to avoid the problematic of interpretation in poems like ‘Michael’ and The Prelude by dramatizing the reasons for writing the work within the poem.”	Altieri points out that Wordsworth integrates his theoretical concerns into his poetic practice, using narrative and dramatic contexts to bridge interpretation and direct experience, making the act of reading an extension of lived reality.
“The essential test of good poetry, Wordsworth argues, is the power it confers on its readers by making them aware of what they share with others and thus deepening their sympathies.”	This captures Wordsworth’s moral vision for poetry, emphasizing its role in fostering human connection and empathy, contrasting with more individualistic or abstract artistic pursuits.
“Pleasure, then, for Wordsworth serves primarily as a psychological correlate both measuring the success of poetry as significant immediate knowledge and transforming knowledge into a capacity to recognize the communal implications of that fit.”	Altieri explores Wordsworth’s integration of pleasure into poetic theory, presenting it as a sign of poetry’s truth and its ability to foster emotional and communal understanding, blending aesthetic and ethical dimensions.
“Wordsworth’s memory reconciles subjective and objective and balances intense participation with lawful reflection.”	Altieri argues that Wordsworth’s use of memory bridges individual emotional depth with universal structures, providing a grounded yet expansive framework for interpreting human experience.
“Wordsworth uses it [memory] to construct a bridge between associationism and idealism.”	Memory serves as a mediating force in Wordsworth’s theory, allowing the poet to combine the empirical grounding of experience with the transformative power of imagination, offering a balanced philosophical approach.
“To have a doctrine that explains death, he surrenders the fullness of life.”	Altieri critiques Wordsworth’s later shift towards a more conservative and explanatory poetic vision, contrasting it with the dynamic and life-affirming insights of his earlier naturalistic and communal framework as expressed in The Prelude.

Suggested Readings: “Wordsworth’s “Preface” as Literary Theory” Charles Altieri

1. Altieri, Charles. “Wordsworth’s ‘Preface’ as Literary Theory.” Criticism, vol. 18, no. 2, 1976, pp. 122–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23100083. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. Altieri, Charles. “Wittgenstein on Consciousness and Language: A Challenge to Derridean Literary Theory.” MLN, vol. 91, no. 6, 1976, pp. 1397–423. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2907143. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. Hayden, John 0. “Wordsworth and Coleridge: Shattered Mirrors, Shining Lamps?” The Wordsworth Circle, vol. 12, no. 1, 1981, pp. 71–81. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24040902. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook

“The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook, first appeared in the journal New Literary History, explores the critical evolution of literary theory, particularly focusing on the contentious relationship between texts and their contexts. Colebrook examines how deconstruction—initially criticized for being overly abstract—challenges the notion of anchoring texts to static historical or cultural milieus. She argues that contemporary contexts of reading often render texts enigmatic or detached from their original conditions of meaning. This essay critiques recent “after theory” movements, such as literary Darwinism, for overly simplifying texts as products of biological or historical imperatives, thus neglecting the inherent multiplicity and decontextualizing forces of textuality. Colebrook’s work is pivotal in contemporary literary theory, as it reaffirms the necessity of theoretical critique in a world where archival and interpretive contexts are increasingly fragmented and unstable.

Summary of “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook

• Critique of Theory and Contextualism
  • Literary theory, particularly deconstruction, has been criticized for its perceived detachment from historical and cultural contexts (“Theory was deemed to be irresponsibly abstract or formalist in its detachment of the text from context”, Colebrook, p. 702).
  • Scholars like John Searle and M. H. Abrams argued that theory undermined the determinacy of meaning by divorcing texts from their contexts (“With philosophers such as John Searle correcting literary theorists for thinking that there might be something like ‘meaning’ that could be found outside everyday usage”, Colebrook, p. 702).
• Necessity of Theory in Modern Contexts
  • Colebrook argues that theory is increasingly relevant today as texts often lack clear historical or cultural grounding in contemporary readings (“We are now facing a world in which there may well be an archive without any possibility of retrieving sense”, Colebrook, p. 703).
  • She suggests that deconstruction enables a profound understanding of the decontextualization of texts, rather than simply rejecting historical or political grounding (“Theory is necessary in today’s context… because we are now facing a world in which there may well be an archive without any possibility of retrieving sense”, Colebrook, p. 703).
• Theory’s Role in Understanding Textuality
  • Deconstruction challenges the idea that texts can be fully contained within fixed contexts, emphasizing the dynamic and generative nature of textuality (“A text cannot be contained within some context of safe, historical, and guaranteed astute reading”, Colebrook, p. 702).
• Criticism of Anti-Theory Movements
  • Colebrook critiques movements like literary Darwinism that attempt to ground texts in life or evolutionary frameworks, as they overlook the multiplicity of meanings and the destabilizing potential of texts (“The most recent attacks on ‘theory’… argue that it is misguided to see texts as anything other than expressions of a purposive life”, Colebrook, p. 709).
• Multiplicity and Historicity of Contexts
  • She emphasizes that contexts themselves are complex and evolving, and any attempt to return to a “pure” or “original” context oversimplifies the interpretive process (“There is no such thing as an original context”, Colebrook, p. 712).
  • Colebrook asserts that deconstruction reveals the paradox that contexts are both necessary for meaning and inherently unstable (“The very concept of context belies the force of concepts, for concepts cannot be exhausted by the context from which they emerge”, Colebrook, p. 716).
• Intersection of Text, Concept, and Life
  • Drawing on Derrida, Deleuze, and Guattari, Colebrook argues that texts, concepts, and contexts are deeply interconnected and inseparable from the broader forces of life and thought (“Concepts open and destroy contexts, enabling modes of thought, problem posing, and orientation”, Colebrook, p. 716).
• Implications for Reading and Interpretation
  • Colebrook contends that reading is a creative act that generates new contexts, rather than restoring texts to their “original” settings (“We read precisely because there is no such thing as context… each text in every reading demands a created context”, Colebrook, p. 713).
  • This understanding challenges conventional approaches to historicism and promotes a more dynamic engagement with texts and their meanings.
• The Future of Theory and Context
  • Colebrook concludes that theory is essential for navigating a world where the traditional contexts of texts are decaying or disappearing (“Theory… is exactly what is required when the very contexts that have enabled a certain archive to be read can neither be guaranteed to survive nor justified”, Colebrook, p. 703).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference
Context	The historical, cultural, or social environment in which a text is produced or interpreted.	“A text cannot be contained within some context of safe, historical, and guaranteed astute reading” (p. 702).
Deconstruction	A theoretical approach that questions the relationship between text, meaning, and context, focusing on instability.	“Theory assumes that a text is something that may or may not be related to intention” (p. 703).
Radical Decontextualization	The idea that texts can exist without fixed or original contexts, making their meanings enigmatic.	“There is no such thing as an original context” (p. 712).
Multiplicity of Meaning	The concept that texts allow for multiple interpretations, not confined by a single historical or cultural milieu.	“Theory… argues for multiple readings” (p. 702).
Historicity	The understanding that meaning emerges through historical processes and contexts, yet these are inherently unstable.	“Historicity… posits a horizon of humanity” (p. 717).
Materiality of Texts	The notion that the physical form of texts influences their interpretation but cannot limit their meaning.	“The text is a singular physical object that is nothing more than itself” (p. 707).
Concept (Deleuze and Guattari)	Concepts are intensive, generative, and not reducible to fixed meanings or historical circumstances.	“Concepts open and destroy contexts” (p. 716).
Mal d’archive (Archive Fever)	Derrida’s term for the paradoxical relationship between preserving texts and their inevitable decontextualization.	“The very mark or trace… always and already tears any closed context from itself” (p. 706).
Stratigraphic Reading	An approach that examines how texts create and transform contexts over time.	“Texts do not ‘have’ contexts but nevertheless require some ideal ‘missing’ people” (p. 703).
Posthumanism	A perspective that considers texts and archives beyond human-centered contexts and interpretations.	“Imagine the archives of human writing continuing to exist in radically inhuman contexts” (p. 703).
Literary Darwinism	A critical approach that grounds texts in evolutionary and biological frameworks.	“The context of evolving life… must guide reading” (p. 709).
Repeatability of Sense	The idea that texts must be intelligible to readers across different contexts and times.	“A text can only be read… if it is readable for another” (p. 707).
Deterritorialization	Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of how texts disrupt fixed meanings and extend beyond their immediate contexts.	“Texts are necessarily deterritorializing” (p. 707).
Interpretosis	A critique of overemphasizing interpretation, assuming texts are always mediated through human signifying systems.	“The logic of the signifier leads to ‘interpretosis’” (p. 717).
Anarchic Historicity	The notion that history and meaning are open-ended, resisting closure and fixed narratives.	“Anarchic genesis that cannot be read as a history of self-creation” (p. 717).

Contribution of “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution of the Essay	Reference
Deconstruction	Challenges criticisms of deconstruction by emphasizing its role in addressing the instability of meaning and context.	“Theory… argues for multiple readings, not because it abandons context but because it confronts its instability” (p. 702).
New Historicism	Critiques simplistic historical contextualization, promoting a more nuanced and fragmented view of historical influence.	“Contexts are multiple and complex—no longer something like a Weltanschauung or unified lived background” (p. 708).
Posthumanism	Extends literary theory to consider texts in radically inhuman contexts, beyond human-centered historical frameworks.	“We are now facing a world… where archives may exist without the possibility of retrieving sense” (p. 703).
Literary Materialism	Highlights the physicality and materiality of texts while asserting their capacity to transcend immediate historical contexts.	“The material object of the text is a split matter… singular yet open to abstract readings” (p. 707).
Literary Darwinism	Critiques Literary Darwinism’s reductionist approach that anchors texts solely in evolutionary or biological imperatives.	“Texts should not simply be expressions of purposive life… such grounding weakens the force of textual multiplicity” (p. 709).
Reader-Response Theory	Emphasizes the role of readers in creating contexts for texts, challenging the notion of fixed or “original” interpretations.	“Each text in every reading demands a created context” (p. 713).
Structuralism and Poststructuralism	Advocates for the idea that texts derive meaning from their systemic relations, not just their historical grounding.	“A text cannot be reduced to the immediate context of communication” (p. 704).
Archive Theory	Explores Derrida’s concept of mal d’archive, focusing on how archives generate and disrupt meaning over time.	“The very mark or trace that would seem to draw the text back… always and already tears any closed context from itself” (p. 706).
Conceptual Philosophy	Applies Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of concepts as intensive, creating orientations for thought rather than being fixed.	“Concepts open and destroy contexts… enabling modes of thought that cannot be reduced to contexts” (p. 716).
Pragmatism	Critiques overly pragmatic approaches to textual interpretation that prioritize immediate social acts over theoretical depth.	“Pragmatism reduces texts to their initial context of desires and purposes, missing their broader theoretical implications” (p. 708).

Summary of Contributions:

• Colebrook’s essay revitalizes deconstruction by highlighting its necessity in a fragmented and posthuman world where traditional contexts decay.
• She critiques historicist and pragmatic frameworks for oversimplifying the relationship between texts and their socio-historical conditions.
• By engaging with conceptual philosophy and materiality, she bridges literary theory with broader philosophical inquiries into meaning and context.
• Her work directly challenges reductive approaches like Literary Darwinism and proposes a renewed focus on the generative and destabilizing potential of texts.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook

Literary Work	Critique Through Colebrook’s Lens	Relevant Concept/Reference
A Slumber Did My Spirit Steal (William Wordsworth)	Highlights the fragility of contexts; questions whether meaning persists when historical or cultural context erodes.	“Are we so far away… from a posthuman world in which material instances of the archive remain, and yet the ‘original’ context… has disappeared?” (p. 703).
The Waste Land (T.S. Eliot)	Explores the difficulty of teaching Eliot’s highly intertextual poem in the absence of its original cultural references.	“How long can we as teachers of English struggle to give students the context they would need to read The Waste Land?” (p. 712).
The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (William Blake)	Critiques the singularity of Blake’s style, arguing that the specificity of his work opens it to decontextualized interpretations over time.	“Blake’s very singularity… produces works of such unique discursive difference that they appear nonreferential, mystical, or enigmatic” (p. 712).
Glamorama (Bret Easton Ellis)	Reflects on the hyper-contextual references in Ellis’s work, suggesting future readers may find the text inscrutable as contexts decay.	“Would not any future reader… encountering Glamorama… not be closer to Knapp and Michaels’s perplexed beachgoer encountering seemingly impossible signifying marks?” (p. 703).

Summary of Critiques:

• Wordsworth: Examined for its potential loss of meaning in a posthuman, decontextualized context.
• Eliot: Highlighted as an example of the pedagogical challenge of preserving interpretive frameworks in a fragmented literary landscape.
• Blake: Analyzed for the paradox where specificity and idiosyncrasy lead to broader interpretive ambiguity.
• Ellis: Critiqued for reliance on ephemeral cultural references, posing questions about the text’s future readability.

Criticism Against “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook

• Overemphasis on Decontextualization
  • Critics argue that Colebrook’s focus on decontextualization undermines the value of historical and cultural frameworks, which are essential for understanding many literary texts.
• Neglect of Pragmatic Interpretations
  • By critiquing pragmatic approaches, Colebrook is said to dismiss the practical and immediate socio-political significance of texts, which can limit the applicability of her arguments to real-world contexts.
• Abstract and Elitist Framework
  • Her reliance on theoretical concepts like those of Derrida and Deleuze may render her work inaccessible or overly abstract for broader audiences and practical literary analysis.
• Dismissal of Historicism
  • Colebrook’s critique of historicism has been viewed as reductive, failing to acknowledge the nuanced ways in which historicism incorporates textual multiplicity and complexity.
• Limited Engagement with Biological or Evolutionary Criticism
  • Her rejection of Literary Darwinism has been criticized for not sufficiently engaging with the potential insights such approaches might offer regarding the universal aspects of human creativity and storytelling.
• Overgeneralization of Textual Multiplicity
  • The claim that all texts inherently destabilize their contexts may overgeneralize and neglect cases where specific historical or cultural grounding is integral to interpretation.
• Potential Inconsistencies in Theoretical Applications
  • Some critics highlight that Colebrook’s advocacy for the dynamic and generative nature of texts might conflict with her critique of pragmatism and contextual grounding.
• Reduction of Political and Social Dimensions
  • Critics argue that her theoretical focus may sideline the political and social dimensions of literature, which are crucial for understanding the impact of many works.
• Insufficient Examples of Contemporary Texts
  • While Colebrook addresses some modern works, critics suggest that her essay would benefit from a broader analysis of contemporary texts to support her claims about decontextualization in the current literary landscape.

Representative Quotations from “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“A text cannot be contained within some context of safe, historical, and guaranteed astute reading.” (p. 702)	Highlights the instability of contextual readings and critiques the notion that texts are securely anchored to specific historical or cultural frameworks.
“We are now facing a world in which there may well be an archive without any possibility of retrieving sense.” (p. 703)	Reflects on the posthuman condition, where texts might exist in a context-less future, questioning the reliance on historical or human-based interpretive norms.
“Theory… is exactly what is required when the very contexts that have enabled a certain archive to be read can neither be guaranteed to survive nor justified.” (p. 703)	Asserts the importance of theory in addressing the contemporary challenges of interpreting decontextualized or fragmented archives.
“Deconstruction was criticized for supposedly reducing ‘everything’ to text, but understood text in a highly literary or linguistic manner.” (p. 708)	Responds to critiques of deconstruction, clarifying its broader philosophical implications beyond textual reductionism.
“There is no such thing as an original context.” (p. 712)	Challenges the idea that contexts are stable or original, suggesting instead that they are continually constructed and reconstructed through interpretation.
“Each text in every reading demands a created context: what this text would mean in the absence of its ‘original’ readers.” (p. 713)	Emphasizes the generative nature of reading, where new contexts are actively created rather than recovered.
“Concepts enable contexts by creating circulating terms irreducible to speakers.” (p. 716)	Draws on Deleuze and Guattari to highlight the role of concepts in transcending and reshaping contexts, fostering new interpretive possibilities.
“The very force that enables a context is also context-destructive.” (p. 717)	Reflects on the paradox that the creation of a context inherently disrupts its stability, opening texts to reinterpretation and recontextualization.
“Blake’s very singularity… tends to produce works of such unique discursive difference that they appear nonreferential, mystical, or enigmatic.” (p. 712)	Uses William Blake as an example to discuss how singular and context-bound works paradoxically invite open-ended interpretations.
“If there can be something like a literary text… then this is because of the necessary anarchism of text.” (p. 711)	Argues that the very nature of texts resists confinement, emphasizing their potential for decontextualization and interpretive freedom.

Suggested Readings: “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook

1. Colebrook, Claire. “The Context of Humanism.” New Literary History, vol. 42, no. 4, 2011, pp. 701–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41328993. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
2. Tucker, Herbert F. “Introduction.” New Literary History, vol. 42, no. 4, 2011, pp. vii–xii. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41328985. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
3. HEIDEPRIEM, SAMUEL. “Free Play in German Idealism and Poststructuralism.” Play in the Age of Goethe: Theories, Narratives, and Practices of Play around 1800, edited by Edgar Landgraf and Elliott Schreiber, Bucknell University Press, 2020, pp. 48–72. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1nj348t.5. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann

“Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann first appeared in Christianity and Literature, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Summer 2004). This pivotal work critiques the stagnation of postmodernism in literary theory, asserting that its inability to generate novel interpretative frameworks signals its decline. Zimmermann argues for a renaissance in literary studies through a neo-humanistic lens, deeply rooted in ontology, humanism, and theology. His approach transcends traditional postmodern skepticism by integrating Incarnational theology, offering a framework that reconciles the ethical imperatives of humanism with the nuanced complexities of literary interpretation. This work is significant for its bold reimagining of literary theory, encouraging scholars to blend foundational hermeneutics with a return to human-centered reading practices, thereby reinvigorating the ethical and educational essence of literature.

Summary of “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann

Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Context in the Article
Postmodernism	A critical movement that challenges grand narratives, emphasizes difference, and denies stable meanings.	Critiqued as having exhausted its potential for innovation and become formulaic in its interpretations. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 495)
Humanism	A philosophical tradition focused on individual dignity, freedom, and the pursuit of universal values.	Advocated as a necessary framework to revitalize literary theory, though it requires reevaluation. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 496)
Neo-Humanism	A revised form of humanism integrating postmodern insights, hermeneutics, and theological grounding.	Proposed as the future direction for theory to balance ethical transcendence and human dignity. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 511)
Hermeneutics	The art and theory of interpretation, emphasizing the historical and contextual nature of understanding.	Central to Zimmermann’s argument for grounding literary theory in interpretive and ontological frameworks. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 499)
Hermeneutic Ontology	A philosophical perspective that combines interpretation with being, focusing on the interplay of history and self-knowledge.	Suggested as a foundation for a humanism that integrates ethics and historical understanding. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 500)
Ontology of Difference	A model of being that emphasizes the distinctiveness and relationality of entities, grounded in theological frameworks like the Trinity.	Proposed as a way to reconcile individuality with ethical universality. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 513)
Incarnational Theology	A Christian theological concept emphasizing God’s embodiment in human form, serving as a model for ethical and interpretive transcendence.	Used to provide a theological grounding for neo-humanism and ethical self-knowledge. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 513)
Ethical Transcendence	The idea that ethics must go beyond individual or historical limitations to address universal concerns.	Grounded in the Incarnation and theological ethics, offering a critique of postmodern relativism. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 505)
Aesthetics in Hermeneutics	The role of beauty and form in apprehending truth and self-knowledge through interpretive engagement.	Positioned as integral to humanistic reflection and literary theory. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 516)
Critique of Enlightenment Rationality	A challenge to the universal reason and objectivity championed by Enlightenment humanism.	Zimmermann argues for a deeper, historically aware understanding of reason and self-knowledge. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 497)
Deconstruction	A postmodern approach to interpretation that reveals hidden assumptions and contradictions in texts.	Recognized for its contributions but critiqued for its inability to address ethical and universal concerns. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 503)
Self-Knowledge	The pursuit of understanding oneself in relation to history, culture, and ethical transcendence.	Presented as the ultimate goal of literary theory and a defining feature of neo-humanism. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 511)
Transcendence and Immanence	The balance between higher, universal truths (transcendence) and their presence within historical contexts (immanence).	Explored as central tensions in developing a future literary theory. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 513)
Interdisciplinarity	The integration of multiple academic fields, including literature, philosophy, and theology, in theoretical discussions.	Advocated as essential for revitalizing literary theory and addressing existential questions. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 517)
Foundational Questions	Fundamental inquiries into the nature of being, knowledge, and interpretation.	Argued as necessary for the future of literary theory beyond postmodernism. (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 499)

Contribution of “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann to Literary Theory/Theories

---

1. Postmodernism

• Critique of Exhaustion: Zimmermann highlights the stagnation of postmodernism, pointing to its inability to offer new and engaging readings of texts. He critiques its tendency to reduce interpretation to ideological frameworks.
  • Key Reference: Postmodernism’s deconstructionist radicalism became formulaic and repetitive, undermining its initial appeal for innovation (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 495).
• Legacy Recognition: Acknowledges postmodernism’s positive contributions, particularly in revealing the polyphonic and unstable nature of meaning in texts.
  • Key Reference: Derrida’s notion of jeu (play) validated the text’s multiplicity and questioned “easy meanings” (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 497).

---

2. Hermeneutics

• Renewed Hermeneutic Focus: Proposes hermeneutics as a foundational approach for literary theory beyond postmodernism, emphasizing the historical and interpretive nature of understanding.
  • Key Reference: Interpretation should involve a fusion of horizons—integrating the historical context of the reader and the text (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 499).
• Hermeneutic Ontology: Suggests grounding literary theory in an ontological framework that connects interpretation to being and ethics.
  • Key Reference: “Reading as hermeneutics means resisting the assumption that close reading comes before interpretation” (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 505).

---

3. Humanism

• Neo-Humanism: Advocates for a reimagined humanism that integrates postmodern insights while addressing its critiques. Zimmermann positions this as central to literary theory’s future.
  • Key Reference: Neo-humanism involves self-knowledge as interpretation and acknowledges the ethical dimensions of literature (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 511).
• Critique of Traditional Humanism: Rejects Enlightenment rationalism and universalist humanism for their inability to address the complexity of human knowing.
  • Key Reference: Traditional humanism’s rationalist epistemology failed to bring peace and progress (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 496).

---

4. Ethical Literary Theory

• Ethical Transcendence in Reading: Proposes that ethics, grounded in theological frameworks such as the Incarnation, should inform literary theory and practice.
  • Key Reference: Ethics is central to interpretation and self-knowledge, offering a normative foundation for understanding texts (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 505).
• Critique of Ideological Criticism: Argues that postmodern ideological criticism undermines genuine ethical engagement by reducing texts to predetermined frameworks.
  • Key Reference: Theory became self-referential, using texts to confirm ideological assumptions (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 497).

---

5. Deconstruction

• Constructive Application of Deconstruction: While critiquing deconstruction’s aporias, Zimmermann recognizes its value in uncovering the complexities and inherent contradictions of texts.
  • Key Reference: Deconstruction validates the irreducible surplus of meaning and protects texts from reductive interpretations (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 503).
• Ethical Reassessment: Suggests that deconstruction should integrate a clearer ethical orientation to be more applicable to contemporary theoretical concerns.
  • Key Reference: Derrida’s emphasis on responsibility and ethics aligns with the humanist project when reframed in a hermeneutical context (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 503).

---

6. Interdisciplinary Approaches

• Integration of Theology and Philosophy: Positions theology, particularly Incarnational theology, as a critical lens for understanding transcendence, ethics, and human existence in literature.
  • Key Reference: The Incarnation models ethical transcendence and communication without loss of difference (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 513).
• Dialogue with Natural Sciences: Calls for literary theory to engage with scientific insights, such as biology, to address broader questions of humanity and existence.
  • Key Reference: Incorporates evolutionary perspectives while maintaining an ontological grounding for ethics (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 512).

---

7. Aesthetic Theory

• Role of Beauty in Interpretation: Argues for aesthetics as essential to self-knowledge, linking beauty and truth through hermeneutics and theology.
  • Key Reference: The experience of beauty transcends rationalism and materialism, providing access to deeper truths (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 516).
• Inclusion of Violence and the Sublime: Suggests that true aesthetics must grapple with both beauty and disfigurement, as modeled by the Cross in Incarnational theology.
  • Key Reference: Art that ignores the demonic or disfigured risks becoming irrelevant (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 516).

---

8. Critical Theory

• Foundational Questions: Reintroduces ontological and existential inquiries as essential to literary theory, countering postmodernism’s dismissal of universals.
  • Key Reference: Questions like “What are human beings for?” must underpin any theory of literature (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 501).
• Marxist Humanism and Social Justice: Echoes Terry Eagleton’s call for theory to engage with history and politics while grounding ethics in transcendence.
  • Key Reference: Marxist ethics require grounding in an ontology that recognizes human dignity (Zimmermann, 2004, p. 502).

Examples of Critiques Through “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann

Literary Work	Focus of Critique	Critical Insight Inspired by Zimmermann	Relevant Theoretical Framework
James Joyce’s Ulysses	The role of subjective consciousness and historical situatedness in interpreting modern identity.	Zimmermann’s emphasis on hermeneutics as historical interpretation critiques the fragmented identity in Ulysses, suggesting that its polyphonic narrative reflects the limits of Enlightenment rationalism.	Hermeneutic ontology: emphasizes historical existence and the fusion of horizons in understanding literary texts.
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	Representation of trauma and ethical responsibility in addressing marginalized voices.	Aligning with Zimmermann’s advocacy for an ethics of reading, Beloved illustrates how literary texts demand an ethical encounter with the “Other,” resonating with Levinasian transcendence and Incarnational theology.	Ethical literary theory: stresses the necessity of ethical transcendence and the humanization of marginalized narratives.
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness	The critique of colonialism and the deconstruction of Enlightenment values in Western imperialism.	Zimmermann’s call for neo-humanism critiques the dehumanizing ideologies of colonialism, as portrayed in Heart of Darkness, urging a reconsideration of human dignity through a theological-ethical framework.	Neo-humanism: integrates theological insights to challenge oppressive ideological structures.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein	Exploration of scientific rationalism and its consequences for human ethics and dignity.	Zimmermann’s critique of ungrounded Enlightenment rationalism provides a lens to analyze Frankenstein, emphasizing the ethical risks of unchecked scientific progress without ontological reflection on human dignity.	Ontology of difference: underscores the relational and ethical dimensions of humanism over reductive scientific rationalism.

Criticism Against “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann

• Over-Reliance on Theological Frameworks
  Zimmermann’s insistence on the necessity of Incarnational theology as a grounding for literary theory may alienate secular scholars who seek non-religious ontological foundations.
• Neglect of Contemporary Interdisciplinary Insights
  While Zimmermann calls for interdisciplinary approaches, his work minimally incorporates insights from natural sciences, cognitive studies, or digital humanities, which are increasingly relevant to literary theory.
• Idealization of Humanism
  Critics argue that Zimmermann’s neo-humanist approach may romanticize humanist ideals, failing to adequately address the historical shortcomings of humanism, such as its complicity in colonial and patriarchal systems.
• Ambiguity in Practical Application
  The work’s theoretical focus on hermeneutics, ethics, and ontology lacks clear guidelines for practical application in literary criticism, leaving readers uncertain about how to use these frameworks in analyzing specific texts.
• Dismissal of Postmodern Contributions
  Zimmermann’s critique of postmodernism as exhausted overlooks its ongoing contributions, such as the critique of power structures and its impact on postcolonial and gender studies.
• Inaccessibility for Non-Specialists
  The dense philosophical language and reliance on thinkers like Heidegger and Levinas may make the text inaccessible to those without a strong background in continental philosophy.
• Insufficient Engagement with Global Perspectives
  The work’s emphasis on Western traditions, especially European philosophy and theology, may exclude non-Western perspectives, limiting its global applicability.
• Tension Between Theoretical and Ethical Goals
  Zimmermann’s attempt to integrate ethical transcendence and hermeneutic ontology risks creating theoretical contradictions, particularly in balancing relativism and universalism in his critique of postmodernism.
• Potential Nostalgia for Pre-Postmodern Theories
  By advocating a return to neo-humanism, Zimmermann may be perceived as nostalgically clinging to outdated models of reading, rather than proposing a forward-looking alternative.

Representative Quotations from “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Postmodernism as a movement of renewal has run its course.”	Zimmermann critiques postmodernism for its inability to generate innovative readings, arguing that its potential has been exhausted. This serves as a springboard for his proposition of moving beyond postmodernism towards a humanist ontology.
“The future of theory depends on our ability to define this neo-humanism ontologically by acknowledging the hermeneutic nature of all self-knowledge and the end of metaphysics.”	This quotation underscores Zimmermann’s central argument: that the renewal of literary theory requires a fusion of hermeneutics, humanism, and ontology. It reflects his emphasis on moving beyond both metaphysical absolutism and postmodern relativism through an ethically and ontologically grounded neo-humanism.
“Theory’s radicalism is limited by the undeconstructable trinity of author, text, and reader that governs all human communication.”	Zimmermann challenges postmodern theory’s claim of radical innovation, suggesting it fails to escape the basic framework of human communication. This critique aims to expose the limitations of postmodernism in addressing the core relationships in literary studies.
“The irony is that Theory’s suspicion of ideologies results in blindness to its own interpretive frameworks.”	By highlighting this paradox, Zimmermann critiques postmodern theory for failing to acknowledge its own ideological underpinnings, which undermines its claims of innovation and ideological neutrality.
“Reading is the slow movement ‘towards realization, meaning, truth, a transformative ethical result.'”	Here, Zimmermann supports the idea that literary theory should return to ethical and humanist goals, framing reading as a process of personal and ethical transformation rather than a purely deconstructive exercise.
“Humanism means that the reader is a stable self but open to change.”	This statement encapsulates Zimmermann’s vision of a renewed humanism, where the reader retains an identity but is adaptable and capable of growth through engagement with literature.
“The Incarnation establishes truth as ethical not only because it occurs in social terms but also because it offers the ultimate norm for human subjectivity and moral action.”	This illustrates Zimmermann’s theological foundation, asserting that Christian theology can offer an ethical grounding for literary theory, reconciling transcendence and immanence in understanding texts.
“We cannot simply return to traditional liberal or Christian humanism; however much we desire such a homecoming, none of its recent advocates provides an ontological justification for this move.”	Zimmermann critiques nostalgic calls for a return to older forms of humanism, advocating instead for a theologically grounded neo-humanism that engages contemporary challenges in literary theory.
“Self-knowledge, the kind of truth conveyed in the humanities, is always interpretation and never unmediated intuition.”	This statement emphasizes the hermeneutic nature of literary theory, where understanding is mediated through interpretation rather than immediate insight, reinforcing the need for an ontologically grounded approach to reading.
“Theology provides an interpretive model that allows for the potential value of all human self-expression and that accommodates all three axioms outlined above.”	Zimmermann argues that theology, particularly Incarnational theology, can offer a robust framework for integrating ethics, hermeneutics, and aesthetics in literary theory, bridging the gap between traditional humanism and postmodern concerns.

Suggested Readings: “Quo Vadis?: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism” by Jens Zimmermann

1. Zimmermann, Jens. “Quo vadis?: Literary theory beyond postmodernism.” Christianity & Literature 53.4 (2004): 495-519.
2. Zimmermann, Jens. “‘Quo Vadis?’: Literary Theory beyond Postmodernism.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 53, no. 4, 2004, pp. 495–519. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44313350. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
3. Shields, George W. “‘Quo Vadis’? On Current Prospects for Process Philosophy and Theology.” American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, vol. 30, no. 2, 2009, pp. 125–52. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27944469. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
4. McLaughlin, Robert L. “Post-Postmodern Discontent: Contemporary Fiction and the Social World.” Symplokē, vol. 12, no. 1/2, 2004, pp. 53–68. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40550666. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

“Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry first appeared in 1987 in the Oxford Literary Review. In this seminal essay, Parry critiques the emerging field of colonial discourse analysis, particularly its reliance on poststructuralist methodologies as exemplified by scholars such as Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. She argues that while these approaches successfully deconstruct the binaries and discursive frameworks of colonialism, they often marginalize or overlook the historical agency and resistance of the colonized. Parry underscores the importance of integrating the material conditions and anti-colonial struggles into theoretical frameworks to avoid reducing colonial history to purely discursive phenomena. The essay is crucial in literary theory as it challenges dominant paradigms within postcolonial studies, urging scholars to reconcile textual analysis with the socio-political realities of imperialism and liberation movements. Its emphasis on the dialectics of colonial power and resistance has had a lasting impact on the field.

Summary of “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

---

Key Issues in Theories of Colonial Discourse

1. Critique of Binary Frameworks in Colonial Discourse
   • Parry questions the reliance on binary oppositions (e.g., colonizer/colonized, self/other) in colonial discourse analysis, arguing that such models often replicate the colonial framework instead of dismantling it (Parry, 273).
   • References critiques like those of Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak, who reject these binaries in favor of exploring hybridity and ambivalence (Bhabha, 93-94; Spivak, 122).
2. Limits of Subversion through Discourse
   • While acknowledging the role of colonial discourse in undermining imperialist rhetoric, Parry critiques its tendency to emphasize textual over material resistance (275).
   • Suggests that focusing solely on deconstructing colonial texts neglects the material practices of imperialism and the active agency of colonized peoples.
3. Reevaluation of Frantz Fanon’s Contributions
   • Parry highlights Fanon’s insights into colonial ideology’s construction but critiques the neglect of his focus on material and collective resistance in favor of psychoanalytic and textual interpretations (276).
   • Fanon’s dialectical method, blending Marxism with phenomenology, provides a framework for understanding colonialism as a lived reality and not just a textual phenomenon.
4. Neglect of Native Agency
   • Current theories often fail to account for the active agency of the colonized, treating them as “muted” or complicit in their subjugation (Spivak, 131).
   • Parry argues for recognizing the historical and political contributions of anti-colonial movements and intellectuals (277-278).
5. Ambivalence and Mimicry in Bhabha’s Approach
   • Bhabha’s concept of mimicry highlights the colonized’s ability to subvert colonial authority through imitation, but Parry finds this insufficient for addressing the structural power of colonialism (Bhabha, 100-104).
   • Critiques the emphasis on discourse over tangible resistance, which risks depoliticizing anti-colonial struggles.
6. Overemphasis on Epistemic Violence
   • Parry critiques Spivak’s focus on “epistemic violence” and the supposed inability of the subaltern to “speak,” arguing it marginalizes existing resistance discourses and alternative epistemologies (Spivak, 130-131).
   • Calls for a broader engagement with liberationist narratives that challenge imperialist histories.
7. Role of Historical Materialism
   • Advocates for a return to historical materialist frameworks that consider the socio-economic dimensions of colonialism alongside its ideological and discursive aspects (Parry, 279).
   • Highlights the inadequacy of purely textual critiques in understanding colonialism’s enduring impacts.
8. Deconstruction vs. Material Politics
   • Parry critiques deconstructionist approaches for their abstract focus, which often ignores the socio-economic and political realities of imperialism (282).
   • Calls for analyses that integrate discourse with the material realities of colonization and resistance.
9. Neglect of Anti-Colonial Literature
   • Suggests current theories often undervalue anti-colonial texts by liberation movements, dismissing them as overly essentialist or nativist (284).
   • Instead, she advocates for a nuanced understanding of these texts as counter-discourses to colonial hegemony.

---

Critical Implications and Future Directions

• Need for Integration of Discursive and Material Analysis
  • Parry urges a balance between deconstructing colonial discourse and addressing the socio-economic structures that sustain imperialism (Parry, 285).
• Recognition of Anti-Colonial Voices
  • Calls for greater acknowledgment of the intellectual and political agency of colonized peoples in resisting colonial domination (Parry, 286-287).
• Engagement with Liberationist Traditions
  • Recommends revisiting liberationist texts to uncover their emancipatory potential and critique their historical erasures by dominant colonial discourse theories.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key References
Colonial Discourse	A system of representation through which colonial powers constructed knowledge about colonized peoples.	Parry critiques its focus on binaries and textual analysis (273-275).
Binary Opposition	The dichotomous construction of categories (e.g., colonizer/colonized, self/other) central to colonialism.	Critiqued by Bhabha and Spivak for its limitations (Bhabha, 93-94; Spivak, 122).
Epistemic Violence	The erasure of native knowledge systems and voices by colonialist frameworks of knowledge.	Spivak emphasizes this concept, critiqued by Parry for neglecting native agency (Spivak, 131).
Mimicry	The ambivalent imitation of colonizers by colonized subjects, both subverting and reinforcing authority.	Bhabha’s concept, critiqued for focusing on textual rather than material resistance (Bhabha, 100-104).
Hybridity	A state of cultural mixing and ambivalence within colonial contexts, undermining binary oppositions.	Central to Bhabha’s critique of colonial authority (Bhabha, 97).
Manichean Aesthetics	A framework of oppositional representations (e.g., good/evil, civilized/primitive) inherent in colonial texts.	Coined by JanMohamed, applied to colonial and anti-colonial literature (JanMohamed, 181).
Subaltern	Marginalized groups unable to represent themselves within dominant discourses.	Spivak’s critique: “The subaltern cannot speak” (Spivak, 122-130).
Reverse Discourse	Resistance through reappropriation and inversion of colonialist language and representations.	Seen in Fanon’s and JanMohamed’s works but critiqued by Spivak for reinstating binaries (Parry, 276-277).
Phenomenology	Study of consciousness and subjective experience; used by Fanon to explore colonial alienation.	Fanon’s dialectical method integrating phenomenology and Marxism (Parry, 276).
Dialectical Process	A method of analysis emphasizing contradictions and their resolution; central to Marxist and Fanonian thought.	Parry emphasizes its role in Fanon’s critique of colonialism (276-277).
Psychoanalytic Framework	Analyzes the psychological effects of colonialism on both colonizers and colonized.	Used by Fanon to dissect identity and alienation; applied by Bhabha in “colonial fantasy” (276).
Cultural Hegemony	Domination through cultural institutions and ideologies rather than overt force.	Critiqued for overlooking material resistance (Parry, 278).
Deconstruction	A method to reveal contradictions and instabilities in texts.	Spivak’s tool to interrogate colonial discourses; critiqued by Parry for neglecting material context (282).
Counter-Discourse	Texts and narratives created to resist and oppose colonialist ideologies.	Advocated by liberationist movements; undervalued in deconstructionist approaches (284).
Liberationist Narratives	Stories and texts emerging from anti-colonial struggles emphasizing native agency and resistance.	Critiqued for essentialism but defended by Parry as politically significant (Parry, 286-287).

Contribution of “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry to Literary Theory/Theories

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

Literary Work	Critique by Parry	Reference to the Text
Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks	Parry emphasizes Fanon’s materialist approach, contrasting it with poststructuralist interpretations. She highlights Fanon’s insistence on revolutionary action and rejection of colonial discourse’s dichotomies.	Discusses Fanon’s revolutionary dialectics and psychoanalytic critique of colonialism (Parry, 276).
Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea	Parry critiques Spivak’s reading for erasing Christophine’s voice as a speaking subject. She argues that Christophine represents a counter-discourse, challenging colonial and patriarchal authority.	Highlights Christophine’s agency as a figure of resistance and counter-discourse (Parry, 284).
Homi Bhabha’s Concept of Hybridity	Parry questions Bhabha’s notion of hybridity, arguing that it often downplays the material realities of colonial oppression. She critiques its focus on ambivalence rather than addressing colonial resistance.	Criticizes the abstraction of hybridity without sufficient emphasis on material struggle (Parry, 278).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart	Parry acknowledges Achebe’s use of realism to counter colonial stereotypes but also critiques a reliance on cultural nostalgia that risks essentializing African traditions.	Examines Achebe’s realism as both a critique of colonial discourse and a potential essentialist pitfall (Parry, 287).

Criticism Against “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

• Limited Engagement with Non-European Contexts: Critics argue that Parry’s focus remains largely Eurocentric, primarily addressing critiques of colonial discourse from metropolitan academic frameworks, rather than incorporating perspectives directly from colonized or postcolonial societies.
• Underestimation of Poststructuralist Insights: Some scholars believe Parry dismisses the value of poststructuralist approaches too quickly, particularly their contributions to understanding the fluidity of identity and power dynamics within colonial discourse.
• Overemphasis on Materialism: Critics suggest that Parry’s advocacy for materialist frameworks risks oversimplifying the complex cultural and psychological effects of colonialism, which are central to postcolonial theories.
• Limited Attention to Gender Dynamics: While Parry critiques Spivak’s portrayal of native women, some argue that her own analysis insufficiently explores how colonialism intersects with gendered power relations.
• Binary Framing of Fanon vs. Poststructuralists: Parry’s framing of Fanon as opposing poststructuralist theorists like Bhabha and Spivak is criticized for simplifying the nuances of their positions and ignoring potential complementarities.
• Neglect of Environmental and Ecological Concerns: Parry’s analysis does not engage with how colonial discourse and imperialism also shaped environmental exploitation, a topic increasingly important in postcolonial studies.
• Insufficient Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Some argue that Parry underestimates the epistemological contributions of indigenous and non-Western knowledge systems in resisting colonial discourse.
• Static View of Cultural Resistance: Parry’s focus on structural and material resistance is seen by some as limiting, failing to account for the fluid and evolving nature of cultural resistance in colonial and postcolonial contexts.
• Overgeneralization of Postcolonial Theorists: Critics note that Parry’s critiques of postcolonial thinkers such as Bhabha and Spivak occasionally generalize their works, reducing their nuanced arguments to broad theoretical trends.

Representative Quotations from “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The construction of a text disrupting imperialism’s authorized version was begun long ago within the political and intellectual cultures of colonial liberation movements.”	Parry highlights how anti-colonial critiques have deep historical roots, challenging colonialism even before postcolonial theory emerged.
“Although critics now developing a critique of colonialism do invoke Fanon, this can be a ceremonial gesture to an exemplary and exceptional radical stance.”	Parry critiques modern theorists for only superficially engaging with Frantz Fanon’s revolutionary ideas.
“Homi Bhabha rejects the notion of the colonial relationship as a symmetrical antagonism… arguing for its ambivalence.”	She critiques Bhabha’s concept of ambivalence for diluting the stark realities of colonial oppression and resistance.
“To dismantle colonialist knowledge and displace the received narrative… the founding concepts of the problematic must be refused.”	Parry advocates for a fundamental rejection of colonialist frameworks rather than their mere deconstruction.
“The subaltern cannot speak.” (Spivak cited)	Parry engages with Spivak’s assertion, critiquing its erasure of native resistance and voice.
“Fanon’s method of exposing… the taxonomy of colonialist knowledge in order to break its hold over the oppressed.”	She emphasizes the enduring relevance of Fanon’s strategies in dismantling colonialist ideology.
“Critics working from such a position might argue… a reverse discourse replicating and therefore reinstalling linguistic polarities.”	Parry critiques both colonial discourse analysis and its tendency to inadvertently reinforce colonial binaries.
“A theory assigning an absolute power to the hegemonic discourse… denies native agency.”	Parry critiques Spivak’s theory for disregarding the active role of colonized peoples in resisting imperialist dominance.
“How then do these deconstructions of colonialism’s signifying system act more radically to disrupt the hegemonic discourse than does Fanon’s method?”	Parry questions whether deconstructive approaches truly challenge colonial power structures more effectively than direct anti-colonial strategies.
“A declared project of defining ‘modes of relationship between a society and its literature’ through examining ‘the ideological structure.’”	Parry advocates for grounding literary criticism in material and ideological contexts to uncover their political implications.

Suggested Readings: “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

1. Parry, Benita. “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse.” Oxford Literary Review, vol. 9, no. 1/2, 1987, pp. 27–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43973680. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
2. Ganguly, Keya. “Roundtable: Revisiting Edward Said’s Orientalism.” History of the Present, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015, pp. 65–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5406/historypresent.5.1.0065. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
3. Parry, Benita. “The Postcolonial: Conceptual Category or Chimera?” The Yearbook of English Studies, vol. 27, 1997, pp. 3–21. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3509129. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
4. Ginsburg, Shai. “Signs and Wonders: Fetishism and Hybridity in Homi Bhabha’s ‘The Location of Culture.’” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 9, no. 3, 2009, pp. 229–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41949661. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka

“Action and Meaning in Literary Theory” by Ronald Tanaka first appeared in a work supported by a Canada Council grant for the English Syntax Project at the University of British Columbia. Published in a scholarly setting, the essay explores the interplay between action theory and utterance-meaning within the context of an integrated literary theory. Tanaka’s pivotal argument links literary interpretation with broader theories of meaning, particularly those developed by philosophers such as H.P. Grice and John Searle. He challenges traditional assumptions that literary meaning is distinct from other types of discourse by positing that the rules governing general meaning equally apply to literature. Tanaka uses theoretical models like Grice’s intention-based framework and Searle’s speech act theory to illuminate how literary works engage readers through intentionality and conventions of language. By bridging linguistics and literary studies, the work underscores the importance of understanding literature not as a separate semantic domain but as deeply intertwined with universal principles of human communication. This contribution is significant as it offers a methodology to analyze literary meaning within a unified framework of linguistic theory, enriching both literary criticism and stylistics.

Summary of “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka

Term/Concept	Definition	Relevance in the Study
Action Theory	A framework for analyzing intentional human behavior and its motivations.	Used to relate literary interpretation to the intentions of agents (authors or characters).
Utterance-Meaning	The meaning intended by the speaker when uttering a sentence.	Central to analyzing literary works, focusing on authorial intent and character dialogue.
Sentence-Meaning	The conventional or dictionary meaning of a sentence.	Differentiated from utterance-meaning to emphasize the role of context and intention in interpretation.
Intention-Based Meaning	A theory by H.P. Grice that defines meaning through the speaker’s intentions.	Provides a framework to unify literary and non-literary meanings, avoiding distinct semantic categories for literature.
Speech Act Theory	A concept by John Searle defining utterances as performative actions.	Applied to analyze promises, threats, and declarations in literary texts.
Rules and Conventions	Shared understandings that govern language use and communication.	Explains how language operates in literature to create meaning, as seen in dialogues and character interactions.
Presupposition	Implicit assumptions shared by speaker and listener.	Explored through literary dialogue, such as the mutual understanding between George and Martha in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?.
Inference Rules	Logical steps used to derive meaning from context and language use.	Highlighted in analyzing reader or character interpretations of literary utterances.
Agent	The instigator of an action or utterance, typically animate.	Essential in action theory and for attributing meaning to authorial or character actions.
Illocutionary Acts	The performative function of an utterance (e.g., promising, threatening).	Central to the analysis of character interactions and their impact on the narrative.
Transformational Grammar	A linguistic theory by Noam Chomsky explaining deep and surface structures.	Supports the idea that deeper linguistic structures can explain literary phenomena.
Deep Structure	The underlying meaning or conceptual framework of a sentence.	Used to bridge the gap between linguistic theory and literary interpretation.
Case Grammar	A linguistic model emphasizing roles such as agent, instrument, and goal.	Provides tools to analyze literary meaning by categorizing relationships in actions and events.
Perlocutionary Effects	The consequences or effects of an utterance on the listener.	Demonstrated in the emotional and relational shifts caused by speech acts in literary works.

Contribution of “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka to Literary Theory/Theories

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka

Literary Work	Critique Through Tanaka’s Framework	Key References from Tanaka’s Theory
Donne’s “The Canonization”	The poem’s meaning is tied to Donne’s intentions behind his utterances rather than purely its poetic language. Understanding Donne’s personal context and intentionality enhances the interpretation.	– “Donne’s meaning that p by c… entails some agent’s meaning that p by uttering x.” – Highlights that authorial intent governs meaning, rejecting the separation of “poetic meaning” from general communicative meaning.
Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?	The verbal exchanges between George and Martha are analyzed as intentional speech acts, such as threats and provocations, which drive the narrative conflict. George’s manipulative speech illustrates deliberate rule violations to challenge presuppositions.	– “The important actions of the play are speech acts… The games that are played, the attacks, cruelty… are possible only through language.” – “There has to exist some set of mutually-known conventions or presuppositions…” – Example: George’s response to Martha: “That’s a threat, Martha,” analyzed as a speech act that leverages intent and audience recognition.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	Hamlet’s dialogue and soliloquies are framed as speech acts expressing complex intentions, such as persuading others (e.g., the players) or reflecting his own internal conflicts.	– Speech acts like promises and threats are applied to analyze character interactions and soliloquies. – “Meaning something is… the performing of an intentional act such as speaking, writing or gesturing with certain kinds of intentions.”
T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”	Prufrock’s hesitations and fragmented monologue reflect an internalized speech act where intention (expressing insecurity and doubt) clashes with conventional forms of communication.	– “Utterance-meaning” focuses on the speaker’s intention, distinguishing it from conventional “sentence-meaning.” – “For someone to mean something by uttering x is for him to utter x with the intention of producing in some hearer some effect by means of the hearer’s recognition of the speaker’s intention.”

Criticism Against “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka

Representative Quotations from “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“A literary theory must entail a theory of action on independent grounds.”	Tanaka asserts that understanding literature requires integrating action theory, which explores human intentionality and behavior, establishing a foundation for connecting linguistic meaning to literary interpretation.
“The central topic of discussion will be the notion of utterance-meaning first proposed by H.P. Grice.”	Highlights the importance of Grice’s intention-based meaning framework, which forms the theoretical basis for analyzing how literary meaning is constructed through speaker intentions and contextual communication.
“If understanding c is essential to an understanding of the poem, then an assessment of Donne’s intentions is essential.”	Links the interpretation of poetry (e.g., Donne’s The Canonization) to the intentional actions of the poet, emphasizing that understanding meaning requires examining what the poet intended to communicate.
“Meaning is not a relation between things, and persons mean things, not words.”	Challenges the relational view of meaning by arguing that meaning derives from human agents and their intentions, not from words themselves, which is central to interpreting literary texts dynamically.
“There has to exist some set of mutually-known conventions or presuppositions.”	Establishes that shared linguistic and cultural conventions are necessary for meaning-making in literature, emphasizing the relational dynamics between author, text, and reader.
“The purpose of a theory is to provide explanations.”	Stresses the explanatory power of Tanaka’s integrated theory of meaning and action, positioning literary theory as a tool for understanding rather than merely interpreting texts.
“Promises are a part of a whole family of intentional actions which are customarily performed in the course of meaning something.”	Uses speech act theory to analyze how promises and other intentional actions (e.g., threats) operate in literature, providing insights into the performative aspects of literary dialogue and narrative.
“George intentionally created the situation by calling his son a bean bag.”	In analyzing Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Tanaka demonstrates how language is deliberately used to manipulate and challenge social conventions, highlighting the intentionality behind character interactions.
“The games that are played, the attacks, cruelty, separation… are possible only through language.”	Asserts the centrality of language to human interaction and conflict, emphasizing its power in creating and resolving narrative tensions in literature.
“Language presupposes a mutual relationship between speaker and hearer.”	Suggests that literary meaning arises from the interaction between the author’s intent and the audience’s interpretation, highlighting the collaborative nature of meaning-making in literary works.

Suggested Readings: “Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka

1. Tanaka, Ronald. “Action and meaning in literary theory.” Journal of Literary Semantics 1.Jahresband (1972): 41-56.
2. Belsey, Catherine. “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning.” New Literary History, vol. 14, no. 1, 1982, pp. 175–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468964. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
3. Olsen, Stein Haugom. “The ‘Meaning’ of a Literary Work.” New Literary History, vol. 14, no. 1, 1982, pp. 13–32. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468955. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
4. 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 17 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

“What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Norman Friedman, first appeared in The Antioch Review in its Autumn 1960 issue, published by Antioch Review Inc. The article, digitized by JSTOR, addresses the purpose and value of literary criticism amidst growing skepticism from various quarters, including poets, scholars, and lay readers. Friedman explores criticism’s necessity as a bridge between the reader and the deeper layers of literature, countering the notion that it over-intellectualizes or diminishes the pleasure of literary experience. He argues for a balanced approach, where reasoning and systematic inquiry coexist with emotional and imaginative engagement. Highlighting the utility of criticism in cultivating taste, extending understanding, and enhancing aesthetic appreciation, the article situates literary criticism as essential to both appreciating and challenging the complexities of creative works. It further underscores the importance of reasoning and theory in navigating the subjective and often ambiguous terrain of literary interpretation. Friedman’s work remains a cornerstone in discussions about the role of criticism in literary theory, advocating for an informed yet flexible approach to understanding literature.

Summary of “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

• The Age of Criticism and Growing Skepticism
  Friedman opens by identifying the contemporary era as an “age of criticism,” marked by the proliferation of analytical works and theoretical discussions in literature. However, this growth has been met with skepticism from poets, scholars, and lay readers, who view criticism as excessive, overly intellectual, and at times harmful to the creative process (“Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical, pedantic, and unimaginative” (Friedman, 1960, p. 316)).
• Criticism vs. Creation: A Necessary Tension
  A recurring concern in the article is the perceived tension between literary creation and criticism. Critics such as John Crowe Ransom and T.S. Eliot lament that excessive criticism risks overshadowing creative impulses. Friedman acknowledges this tension but maintains that criticism, when properly applied, complements creativity rather than stifling it (“Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (Friedman, 1960, p. 316)).
• Hostility Towards Intellectual Inquiry in Literature
  Friedman identifies a broader cultural hostility towards intellectualism, tracing its roots to historical, psychological, and philosophical objections. He critiques the belief that reasoning about literature diminishes its enjoyment, arguing instead that intellectual engagement enhances rather than detracts from aesthetic pleasure (“But do we really think that our pleasures are so frail as to disappear under analysis? Or that the powers of literature are so weak as to be so easily crushed?” (Friedman, 1960, p. 319)).
• The Role of Theory and Systematic Inquiry
  The article emphasizes the inevitability and utility of theoretical frameworks in literary analysis. Friedman argues that no interpretation occurs in a vacuum; even the most intuitive responses are shaped by implicit assumptions (“We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading” (Friedman, 1960, p. 326)).
• Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Criticism
  Friedman elaborates on the role of inductive and deductive reasoning in criticism, countering the notion that these methods are antithetical to the literary experience. He asserts that both are essential to forming meaningful interpretations (“Most questions of literary interpretation … are of this second type … making inferences, and it is that process of making inferences which is … dependent upon the principles of reasoning” (Friedman, 1960, p. 322)).
• Multiple Dimensions of Literary Criticism
  Friedman outlines the multifaceted nature of literary criticism, encompassing inquiries into the poet’s life, the poem’s structure, its effects on the reader, and its connection to the broader world. He emphasizes that no single approach can capture the entirety of a work’s significance (“No one approach gives us the whole truth; that each approach does what it was designed to do and not what any other approach can do” (Friedman, 1960, p. 325)).
• Criticism as a Path to Discovery
  The ultimate purpose of criticism, according to Friedman, is to enable deeper understanding and appreciation of literature. By examining our assumptions and engaging rigorously with texts, critics can transcend personal biases and uncover new dimensions of meaning (“In this way only can we do justice to the poet. How else can we get outside ourselves and enter the world he took such pains to make for us?” (Friedman, 1960, p. 330)).
• Criticism and Progress in Literary Knowledge
  Friedman asserts that criticism is not an idle exercise but a progressive endeavor. Through systematic inquiry and theoretical exploration, critics contribute to the collective understanding of literature (“Although there is no way of choosing between competing interpretations unless the issue is first joined, this doesn’t mean … that one interpretation is as good as the other” (Friedman, 1960, p. 328)).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation/Definition	References from the Text
Criticism vs. Creation	The tension between the act of literary creation and the critical analysis that follows, often seen as potentially stifling creativity.	“Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (p. 316).
Inductive Reasoning	A form of reasoning that begins with specific observations and builds general conclusions or theories.	“Induction … provides us instead with a rational method for testing its results” (p. 323).
Deductive Reasoning	A logical process that starts with a general statement or hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a specific conclusion.	“Deduction refers to the manner in which the mind infers the nature of that which is unknown” (p. 322).
Subordination of Criticism	The idea that criticism should serve creative literature, not dominate it.	“Critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (p. 316).
Multiplicity of Approaches	The acknowledgment that different works demand different theoretical and methodological approaches to interpretation.	“No one approach gives us the whole truth; that each approach does what it was designed to do” (p. 325).
Reason in Literary Criticism	Advocacy for rational inquiry and reasoning as necessary tools for deeper understanding of literature.	“There is no escape, then, from reason—even if we should want one” (p. 326).
Hostility to Intellectual Inquiry	The resistance from some quarters to analyzing literature systematically, often tied to fears of over-intellectualization.	“Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical” (p. 316).
Role of Theoretical Frameworks	The necessity of explicit or implicit frameworks in guiding interpretation and criticism.	“We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience” (p. 326).
Progress in Literary Knowledge	The idea that criticism contributes to the accumulation of understanding and knowledge about literature.	“Although there is no way of choosing between competing interpretations … one interpretation is as good as another” (p. 328).
Educational Function of Criticism	The role of criticism in extending and cultivating a reader’s taste, understanding, and appreciation of literature.	“How does such an argument allow for us to develop and extend our natural responses and tastes?” (p. 327).

Contribution of “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory/Approach	Contribution	References from the Article
New Criticism	Advocates for close reading and systematic analysis of texts, emphasizing internal coherence, paradox, and tension as critical tools for interpretation.	“We look in poems for conflicts, paradoxes, ironies, ambiguities, symbols, and the like, in an attempt to define the total meaning” (p. 324).
Reader-Response Theory	Highlights the interaction between the text and the reader, considering the subjective experience and interpretative engagement of the audience.	“How it affects him or what good or harm it will do to him” as a basis for critical inquiry (p. 325).
Formalism	Emphasizes the study of the artistic structure of literature, analyzing how the parts of a literary work relate to the whole.	“If we want to study the poem as an artistic product, then we must ask how the parts are related to the whole” (p. 324).
Historical-Biographical Criticism	Discusses how the poet’s life, historical context, and creative process influence the composition and interpretation of a literary work.	“How a poem reflects the life and background of its author … the poem has the status of a document” (p. 324).
Psychological Criticism	Introduces psychological theories, including Freudian analysis, to understand the creative process and character motivations within literary texts.	“The various psychological theories which by now have gained currency” as tools for interpretation (p. 324).
Critical Pluralism	Advocates for a multiplicity of approaches to literary analysis, recognizing that no single method can provide a complete understanding of a text.	“No one approach gives us the whole truth; each evolves out of a reasonable process of inference” (p. 325).
Ontology of Literature	Explores the metaphysical nature of literary works, questioning their relationship to reality and their role in representing or shaping the human experience.	“The mode of being of poetry—whether it has any significant connection with reality or whether it is simply a fictive device” (p. 325).
Educational Philosophy in Criticism	Asserts the role of criticism in enhancing a reader’s aesthetic and intellectual engagement with literature, fostering growth in understanding and taste.	“Criticism contributes to a liberal and enlarged area of aesthetic awareness, bounded only by our capacity for new experience” (p. 330).
Ethical Criticism	Discusses the moral implications of literature and its influence on readers, engaging with the ethical dimensions of literary texts.	“What good or harm it will do to him” as part of the critical inquiry into the poem-reader relationship (p. 325).
Theory of Induction and Deduction	Integrates philosophical reasoning methods into literary criticism, demonstrating how systematic inquiry can enrich interpretation and understanding.	“Deduction refers to the manner in which the mind infers the nature of that which is unknown … Induction helps us to test the adequacy of our conclusions” (pp. 322–323).

Examples of Critiques Through “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

• Critique of Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” (Explication Approach)
  Using Friedman’s defense of systematic analysis, critics might revisit John Ciardi’s controversial explication of Frost’s poem. A focus on paradox and tension, as Friedman suggests, could reveal the conflict between the speaker’s duty and the allure of nature’s stillness (**”We look in poems for conflicts, paradoxes, ironies, ambiguities, symbols, and the like”* (Friedman, 1960, p. 324)).
• Critique of T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” (New Criticism)
  Applying Friedman’s emphasis on internal coherence, Eliot’s work could be analyzed for its paradoxes and ambiguities, examining how the fragmentation reflects the spiritual disarray of modernity (**”If poetry is, as they say, organized around a reconciliation of opposing views … then we look in poems for conflicts and tensions”* (p. 324)).
• Critique of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (Historical-Biographical Criticism)
  Following Friedman’s approach to considering an author’s life and historical context, Fitzgerald’s novel could be critiqued as a reflection of Jazz Age decadence and disillusionment (**”How a poem reflects the life and background of its author … the poem has the status of a document”* (p. 324)).
• Critique of Emily Dickinson’s Poetry (Psychological Criticism)
  Through psychological theories, Dickinson’s use of imagery and themes of death and isolation could be explored as expressions of her introspective and reclusive personality (**”The various psychological theories … allow us to infer the nature of that process from the characteristics of the results”* (p. 324)).

Criticism Against “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

• Overemphasis on Rationality
  Critics might argue that Friedman places excessive emphasis on logical reasoning and systematic inquiry, potentially marginalizing the emotional and intuitive responses that many believe are central to experiencing literature (**”There is no escape, then, from reason—even if we should want one”* (Friedman, 1960, p. 326)).
• Dismissal of Anti-Critical Perspectives
  While Friedman acknowledges skepticism toward criticism, he largely dismisses it as hostility to intellectual inquiry. Critics could challenge this as oversimplifying valid concerns about over-intellectualization of literature (**”The attack on the abuses of reason frequently turns into an attack on reason itself”* (p. 317)).
• Limited Consideration of Cultural and Social Factors
  The essay focuses heavily on individual works and theoretical frameworks but provides limited discussion of broader cultural or societal influences on literature and its interpretation, which are vital in contemporary literary studies.
• Neglect of Reader’s Agency in Interpretation
  Although Friedman addresses reader-response aspects, his approach could be critiqued for insufficiently emphasizing the role of individual readers’ diverse contexts, experiences, and subjective interpretations.
• Insufficient Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
  The essay operates predominantly within a Western literary tradition and critical frameworks, leaving non-Western literary theories and perspectives unexamined, thus limiting its inclusivity.
• Overgeneralization of Critical Pluralism
  While Friedman advocates for multiple approaches, critics might argue that his emphasis on critical pluralism lacks specificity, as it does not fully address how competing interpretations should be prioritized or reconciled (**”No one approach gives us the whole truth”* (p. 325)).
• Perceived Elitism in Literary Study
  Friedman’s argument for intellectual rigor and systematic approaches might be criticized as catering to an academic elite, alienating casual readers and undermining literature’s accessibility.

Representative Quotations from “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa.” (p. 316)	Friedman highlights that criticism serves creative literature, ensuring that it complements rather than stifles the artistic process.
“Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical, pedantic, and unimaginative.” (p. 316)	This acknowledges valid critiques of literary criticism, stressing that poorly executed criticism can harm the appreciation of literature.
“The attack on the abuses of reason frequently turns into an attack on reason itself.” (p. 317)	Friedman defends intellectual inquiry against those who dismiss it outright, asserting the importance of reasoning in understanding literature.
“No one critical theory as to the nature and function of literature should dominate the field, for artists must be allowed to work out their own visions and revisions.” (p. 316)	He advocates for diversity in critical approaches, warning against rigid adherence to a single critical framework.
“We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading.” (p. 326)	This emphasizes the inescapable influence of personal and cultural contexts in interpreting literary works.
“Logic merely formulates what happens whenever we think effectively, just as grammar merely formulates what happens whenever we speak or write effectively.” (p. 323)	Friedman underscores that reasoning is a natural part of critical thought, comparable to how grammar structures language.
“If you can’t feel it, then I can’t explain it to you” … undercuts the entire teaching profession at its roots.” (p. 327)	He critiques the anti-intellectual stance that denies the role of teaching and systematic inquiry in fostering deeper literary appreciation.
“There are systems and there are systems—some are closed in that they limit our experience of a poem … some are open in that they widen our experience by suggesting ways of asking questions.” (p. 329)	Friedman distinguishes between restrictive and expansive critical methods, advocating for those that enhance exploration and understanding.
“The poem does not interpret itself for us, and we cannot interpret it … without bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading.” (p. 326)	He asserts that interpretation requires active engagement and is shaped by the reader’s experiences and knowledge.
“We are all critics, then, whether we know it or not.” (p. 329)	Friedman democratizes the concept of criticism, suggesting that forming opinions and judgments is an inherent human activity.

Suggested Readings: “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

1. Friedman, Norman. “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” The Antioch Review, vol. 20, no. 3, 1960, pp. 315–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4610268. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. Butler, Christopher. “What Is a Literary Work?” New Literary History, vol. 5, no. 1, 1973, pp. 17–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468405. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. Fleming, Bruce E. “What Is the Value of Literary Studies?” New Literary History, vol. 31, no. 3, 2000, pp. 459–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057615. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
4. Showalter, Elaine. “Literary Criticism.” Signs, vol. 1, no. 2, 1975, pp. 435–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173056. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

“Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper first appeared in Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory (June 1999, No. 93), published by Berghahn Books in collaboration with the University of KwaZulu-Natal. This essay explores the complex relationship between humanism and science, contending with the perceived antagonism between the two. Cooper traces the philosophical evolution of humanism, distinguishing between various interpretations, such as Renaissance humanism, rational subjectivity, and existential humanism. He posits that modern humanism, particularly in its existential form, inherently challenges the scientific worldview by rejecting notions of an objective reality independent of human perspectives. This work is significant in literature and literary theory as it underscores the philosophical tensions between human agency, cultural heritage, and the epistemological frameworks underpinning scientific inquiry. It invites a rethinking of humanism’s role in shaping intellectual discourses and its implications for understanding human culture and values amidst modernity’s scientific advancements.

Summary of “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

1. Diverse Interpretations of Humanism and Science

• Cooper highlights contrasting views on humanism and its relation to science, citing some who see science as irrelevant to the humanities, while others equate modern humanism with scientific humanism (Cooper, 1999, p. 1). These differences stem from varying definitions of humanism and its historical contexts.

2. Renaissance Humanism and its Legacy

• Renaissance humanism, focused on the humanities (litterae humaniores), is identified as the origin of the term. It emphasized cultural and intellectual pursuits, setting itself apart from modern interpretations tied to secular and scientific concerns (Cooper, 1999, p. 2).

3. Evolution into Philosophical Humanism

• Cooper traces how modern philosophical humanism diverges from its Renaissance roots, transitioning into a worldview that often conflicts with scientific perspectives. This conflict arises when humanism prioritizes subjective, human-centered values over scientific objectivity (Cooper, 1999, p. 3).

4. Characterizing Humanism

• Cooper identifies four dominant characterizations of humanism in intellectual history:
  1. Essentialism: Positing a universal “essence” of humanity (Cooper, 1999, p. 4).
  2. Naturalism: Viewing humans as a natural species, often aligned with scientific explanations (Cooper, 1999, p. 6).
  3. Rational Subjectivity: Celebrating the autonomy and rational capacities of individuals (Cooper, 1999, p. 8).
  4. Existential Humanism: Emphasizing human agency in constructing meaning and reality, rejecting universal truths (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).

5. The Critique of Humanism

• Modern critiques of humanism often focus on its anthropocentric tendencies and its reliance on human-centered metaphysics, which some environmental ethicists and philosophers like Heidegger argue has contributed to ecological and epistemic crises (Cooper, 1999, p. 5).

6. Existential Humanism as the Dominant Form

• Cooper identifies existential humanism as the most representative form of contemporary humanism. It denies a fixed, objective reality, emphasizing instead the constructive role of human agency in shaping the world (Cooper, 1999, p. 12).

7. Historical Continuity and Divergence

• Cooper connects existential humanism to its Renaissance precursors, who, in response to medieval skepticism about divine order, began privileging human agency and practical engagement over metaphysical speculation (Cooper, 1999, p. 13).

8. Implications for Science and Humanism

• Cooper argues that existential humanism inherently conflicts with the scientific worldview when the latter asserts an independent, intrinsic reality. This clash reflects deeper tensions between human-centered values and objective scientific inquiry (Cooper, 1999, p. 15).

9. Bridging Historical and Popular Understandings

• The dual heritage of humanism—as both a celebration of human culture and a naturalistic concern for human well-being—explains the divergent popular interpretations of the term today (Cooper, 1999, p. 16).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference in Text
Humanism	A worldview emphasizing human values, culture, and agency. Varied interpretations exist, including philosophical, scientific, and cultural humanism.	Discussed throughout; historical roots in Renaissance humanism (Cooper, 1999, pp. 1-2).
Renaissance Humanism	Focus on humanities (litterae humaniores), cultural achievements, and skepticism toward universal scientific truths.	Origin of humanism, contrasting with modern forms (Cooper, 1999, p. 2).
Essentialism	The belief in a universal human essence that defines human nature. Often criticized for being overly simplistic.	Rejected by modern humanists like Sartre; “existence precedes essence” (Cooper, 1999, pp. 4-5).
Naturalism	A view that positions humans as part of nature, often rejecting supernatural explanations.	Explored in the context of scientific humanism (Cooper, 1999, pp. 6-7).
Rational Subjectivity	The notion that humans are autonomous, rational beings capable of independent judgment and creating meaning.	Rooted in Enlightenment ideas; critiqued for privileging individual rationality (Cooper, 1999, pp. 8-9).
Existential Humanism	Emphasizes human agency in shaping reality and meaning. Rejects objective truths independent of human perspective.	Argued to be the dominant modern form of humanism (Cooper, 1999, pp. 11-13).
Scientific Worldview	A perspective that seeks to explain reality through objective, empirical, and naturalistic methods.	Often conflicts with existential humanism (Cooper, 1999, p. 15).
Anthropocentrism	The belief that humans are the central or most significant entities in the universe.	Criticized by environmental ethics and linked to ecological issues (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
Metaphysical Hubris	The overconfidence in human ability to define or reshape reality based solely on human perspectives and interests.	Critiqued by thinkers like Heidegger and Nagel (Cooper, 1999, p. 12).
Self-Assertion	A response to the loss of divine order, emphasizing human agency and practical engagement with the world.	Highlighted as a response to medieval skepticism (Cooper, 1999, p. 13).
Agency-Driven Antirealism	The view that reality is shaped by human practices, desires, and interests rather than existing independently.	Central to existential humanism (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).
Post-Enlightenment Skepticism	Doubts about the universal applicability and objectivity of reason and scientific inquiry.	Rooted in critiques of Enlightenment rationality (Cooper, 1999, p. 9).
Environmental Ethics	Critiques humanism’s anthropocentric tendencies and its perceived role in ecological degradation.	Views humanism as responsible for a “technological stance” towards nature (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).

Contribution of “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of Anthropocentrism in Literature and Culture
  • Cooper critiques the anthropocentric focus of humanism, which literary ecocriticism also addresses. He aligns with environmental ethics that challenge human-centered narratives, suggesting a shift towards perspectives that decentralize human agency in interpreting texts and culture (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
• Existential Humanism and Poststructuralist Theory
  • By emphasizing existential humanism, Cooper contributes to theories like poststructuralism, which reject fixed meanings and universal truths. His discussion parallels Derrida’s notion of deconstruction, where meaning is shaped by human agency rather than inherent essences (Cooper, 1999, pp. 11-12).
• Reinterpretation of Enlightenment Values
  • Cooper interrogates rational subjectivity as rooted in Enlightenment ideals, critiquing its dominance in Western thought. This resonates with postcolonial and feminist literary theories that challenge universal rationality as a colonial or patriarchal construct (Cooper, 1999, p. 8).
• Skepticism Toward Universal Truths
  • Cooper’s alignment with Renaissance skepticism about “global truths” connects with New Historicism, which views meaning and interpretation as context-dependent, influenced by historical and cultural factors (Cooper, 1999, pp. 2-3).
• Human Agency in Shaping Reality
  • His focus on agency-driven antirealism informs reader-response theory. Cooper’s view that humans construct reality aligns with the idea that readers co-create meaning through their subjective engagement with texts (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).
• Humanism’s Role in Technological Narratives
  • Cooper critiques humanism’s complicity in technological and ecological degradation, offering insights relevant to Marxist and materialist theories. These theories examine how human-centered ideologies influence cultural production and consumption (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
• Influence on Ecocritical Theory
  • By addressing humanism’s impact on ecological crises, Cooper aligns with ecocriticism, which critiques literature’s anthropocentric biases and promotes more inclusive representations of nature (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
• Reevaluation of Renaissance Humanism
  • His analysis of Renaissance humanism’s focus on cultural achievements enriches literary studies by highlighting how these traditions inform modern humanist and posthumanist perspectives (Cooper, 1999, pp. 13-15).
• Intersection with Modern Literary Theories
  • Cooper’s existential humanism, with its emphasis on human agency and constructed realities, contributes to phenomenological approaches in literary theory, where subjective experience is central to understanding texts (Cooper, 1999, pp. 11-12).

Examples of Critiques Through “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

Literary Work	Critique Based on Cooper’s Ideas	Key References from Cooper’s Article
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein	Critique of anthropocentrism: Victor Frankenstein’s attempt to “master nature” reflects humanism’s technological hubris.	Cooper discusses the “technological stance” and its ecological consequences (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness	Post-Enlightenment skepticism: The novella critiques Enlightenment rationality and its link to colonial exploitation.	Cooper critiques rational subjectivity and universal truths rooted in Enlightenment ideals (Cooper, 1999, pp. 8-9).
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Nature	Critique of human agency in shaping reality: Emerson’s transcendentalism embodies existential humanism but risks anthropocentrism.	Cooper’s existential humanism focuses on human agency shaping the world, often critiqued for anthropocentrism (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).
William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience	Critique of human dualism: Blake’s works challenge humanism’s compartmentalization of innocence and experience, advocating a holistic view.	Cooper discusses skepticism toward rigid humanist categories and fixed essences (Cooper, 1999, pp. 4-5).

Criticism Against “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

• Lack of Practical Solutions
  • While Cooper critiques anthropocentrism and the scientific worldview’s conflicts with humanism, he provides limited practical alternatives to reconcile these tensions.
• Overgeneralization of Philosophical Traditions
  • The categorization of humanism into essentialism, naturalism, rational subjectivity, and existential humanism may oversimplify complex and diverse philosophical traditions.
• Insufficient Engagement with Counterarguments
  • Cooper critiques the scientific worldview and Enlightenment rationality but does not fully address the strengths or potential synergies between science and humanism.
• Limited Representation of Modern Humanism
  • The discussion heavily emphasizes existential humanism as the dominant form, potentially sidelining other significant contemporary interpretations of humanism, such as pragmatic humanism.
• Ambiguity in Defining Existential Humanism
  • While Cooper highlights existential humanism’s emphasis on agency and constructed realities, the boundaries of this concept remain vague and open to interpretation.
• Neglect of Posthumanist Perspectives
  • Cooper’s critique of traditional humanism does not sufficiently engage with posthumanist theories that challenge human exceptionalism and offer alternative frameworks.
• Inconsistent Historical Connections
  • The link between Renaissance humanism and existential humanism, while compelling, may oversimplify historical developments and downplay transitional philosophical movements.
• Limited Scope in Addressing Ecological Concerns
  • Although Cooper critiques anthropocentrism, his work lacks depth in proposing how humanism can adapt to address pressing ecological and environmental crises.

Representative Quotations from “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The appearance of a necessary opposition between humanism and science is illusory.”	Cooper highlights how the perceived conflict between humanism and science is rooted in misunderstandings of their roles and definitions, showing how they may complement rather than contradict each other.
“Modern humanism just is scientific humanism.”	This reflects Cooper’s observation of modern humanist movements aligning themselves with scientific rationality, advocating for a worldview grounded in empirical evidence.
“Humanism, in the dominant philosophical sense today, is antagonistic to the scientific worldview.”	Cooper argues that contemporary philosophical humanism often challenges the deterministic and objective claims of science, emphasizing subjective human values and agency.
“The scientific worldview implies that reality is independent of human perspectives and purposes.”	This contrasts with existential humanism, which Cooper identifies as centered on the idea that reality is shaped by human interaction and interpretation.
“The theory of the subject is at the heart of humanism.”	Cooper points to the focus on human subjectivity and autonomy as central to humanist philosophy, especially in its existential variant.
“Existential humanism denies that there is a way the world intrinsically is, independent of human perspectives.”	Here, Cooper encapsulates existential humanism’s anti-realist stance, emphasizing the role of human agency in constructing reality.
“Human dignity is secured not through success in contemplative appreciation of the cosmic order, but through successful coping with the world.”	This reflects the shift from metaphysical or religious humanism to a pragmatic approach, emphasizing human ability to adapt and thrive.
“For Heidegger, the technological stance to the world as equipment at human disposal is responsible for ‘the devastation of the earth.’”	Cooper integrates Heidegger’s critique of anthropocentrism, linking humanism’s focus on agency with environmental exploitation.
“Renaissance humanism engendered, in more than one way, the development of a natural science which left little space for the divine and supernatural.”	Cooper examines how Renaissance humanism’s focus on human capacity and reason laid the groundwork for scientific inquiry and secularism.
“There is no one position under attack and inviting a single characterization.”	Cooper acknowledges the multiplicity of critiques against humanism, arguing for a nuanced understanding of its diverse interpretations and implications.

Suggested Readings: “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

1. Cooper, David E. “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 93, 1999, pp. 1–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802111. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. McNeill, William H. “History and the Scientific Worldview.” History and Theory, vol. 37, no. 1, 1998, pp. 1–13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505637. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. Paden, Roger. “Foucault’s Anti-Humanism.” Human Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 1987, pp. 123–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008991. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
4. Griffioen, Sander. “ON WORLDVIEWS.” Philosophia Reformata, vol. 77, no. 1, 2012, pp. 19–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24710030. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

“Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by René Wellek first appeared in The Sewanee Review in Winter 1960, published by Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal article, Wellek distinguishes the interrelated but distinct fields of literary theory, criticism, and history. He advocates for their collaboration, emphasizing that literary theory involves the principles and criteria of literature, criticism deals with the interpretation and evaluation of individual works, and history examines literature in its temporal and cultural contexts. Wellek critiques efforts to subsume these disciplines into one or reduce them to purely historical or critical endeavors, defending the necessity of theoretical inquiry in understanding literature as a systematic art form. The work remains a cornerstone in literary studies, urging a balanced approach to evaluating literature’s aesthetic, historical, and theoretical dimensions. This piece underscores the importance of integrating these perspectives to enrich the study and appreciation of literary works, advancing the broader discourse in humanities.

Summary of “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

Key Themes and Insights:

1. Distinction of Literary Disciplines
   Wellek emphasizes the differentiation among literary theory, literary criticism, and literary history, asserting their interdependence but distinct roles. Literary theory explores the principles and criteria of literature, criticism interprets and evaluates works, and history situates literature in its historical context (pp. 1-3).
2. Collaboration Between Disciplines
   Wellek argues that the three disciplines—literary theory, criticism, and history—“implicate each other so thoroughly as to make inconceivable literary theory without criticism or history, or criticism without theory or history” (p. 2).
3. Critique of Terminological Confusion
   The article critiques the terminological inconsistencies across languages. For example, the German term “Literaturwissenschaft” retains a broad meaning, while English terms like “literary theory” and “poetics” have narrower or misleading connotations (pp. 3-4).
4. Theory’s Role in Literary Studies
   Literary theory is positioned as vital to understanding literature as a systematic and intellectual pursuit. Wellek defends theory against efforts to subordinate it to history or criticism (p. 5).
5. Response to Northrop Frye
   Wellek acknowledges Northrop Frye’s contributions to literary theory but critiques Frye’s attempt to isolate literary theory as the supreme discipline while diminishing the roles of criticism and history (pp. 6-7).
6. Rejection of Pure Historicism
   Wellek refutes extreme historicism, which he sees as overly relativistic and prone to antiquarian pedantry. He argues for integrating history into literary analysis without reducing literature to historical artifacts (pp. 8-10).
7. Defending Close Reading
   While acknowledging the flaws of close reading, Wellek asserts its indispensability for advancing literary understanding, calling it a fundamental tool for interpretation (p. 11).
8. Against Absolute Relativism
   Wellek criticizes complete relativism, arguing that it leads to skepticism and undermines meaningful evaluation. He advocates for a balanced approach that recognizes universal aesthetic values while accounting for historical and cultural contexts (pp. 14-15).
9. Vision for Unified Literary Study
   Wellek concludes by advocating a unified literary approach where theory, criticism, and history coexist and inform each other. He likens literature to an “imaginary museum” that transcends time and space, asserting humanity’s defiance of impermanence (pp. 18-19).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key Reference/Explanation in Text
Literary Theory	The study of principles, categories, and criteria of literature; the systematic framework for understanding literature.	“Literary theory” is the study of the principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like (p. 2).
Literary Criticism	Analysis and evaluation of specific literary works; focuses on interpretation and judgment of individual texts.	“Literary criticism” (primarily static in approach) is distinct yet related to literary theory and history (p. 2).
Literary History	Situates literature within historical and cultural contexts, analyzing its evolution and chronological order.	“History” examines literature as a series of works arranged in a chronological order and as integral parts of the historical process (p. 2).
Historicism	The approach that emphasizes understanding literature within its historical and cultural context, often critiqued for relativism.	Critiqued for leading to “antiquarian pedantry” and devaluing the universal aspects of art (pp. 8-10).
Close Reading	A detailed, focused analysis of a text’s structure and meaning, emphasizing the text itself over external context.	“Close reading… is surely here to stay, as any branch of knowledge can advance and has advanced only by careful inspection” (p. 11).
Systematic Knowledge	Literature studied as a coherent system, with its principles and values interconnected.	“A theory of literature… must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature” (p. 5).
Relativism	The belief that judgments and values are context-dependent and subjective; critiqued for undermining universal evaluation.	Extreme relativism “leads to paralyzing skepticism, to an anarchy of values” (p. 14).
Collaboration of Disciplines	The interdependence of theory, criticism, and history to provide a comprehensive understanding of literature.	“These distinctions are fairly obvious… yet the disciplines implicate each other thoroughly” (pp. 1-3).
Aesthetic Standards	Universal principles for evaluating the quality of literary works, countering pure relativism.	“Critical judgment requires aesthetic standards just as ethical or logical standards are indispensable” (p. 15).
Imaginary Museum	A metaphor for the cumulative and transcendent nature of literature across time and cultures.	“Literature… is a chorus of voices… articulating defiance of impermanence, relativity, and history” (p. 19).

Contribution of “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek to Literary Theory/Theories

---

Theoretical Framework	Contribution	Reference/Key Argument in Article
Structuralism	Emphasizes the systematic nature of literature, arguing for the analysis of its intrinsic structure and coherence.	“Literary theory… must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature” (p. 5).
Formalism/New Criticism	Defends close reading as essential for understanding literature, focusing on the text itself over historical or biographical details.	“Close reading… is surely here to stay, as any branch of knowledge can advance… only by careful, minute inspection” (p. 11).
Historicist Criticism	Challenges reductive historicism while advocating for integrating historical context without subsuming literature entirely into history.	“History cannot absorb or replace theory, while theory should not even dream of absorbing history” (p. 19).
Comparative Literature	Advocates for breaking down linguistic and cultural barriers to create a universal understanding of literature.	“We can more directly and easily assemble our museum in a library… still faced with the walls and barriers of languages” (p. 19).
Reader-Response Theory	Implicitly supports the interaction between the critic and the text, emphasizing judgment and interpretation by the reader.	“The critic must analyze, interpret, and evaluate it; he must, in short, be a critic in order to be a historian” (p. 14).
Aesthetic Theory	Critiques relativism and reasserts the need for universal aesthetic standards for evaluating literature.	“There is a hierarchy of viewpoints… evaluation grows out of understanding: correct evaluation out of correct understanding” (p. 17).
Interdisciplinary Literary Studies	Proposes collaboration between literary theory, criticism, and history to enrich literary analysis and interpretation.	“The three disciplines… implicate each other thoroughly, making inconceivable one without the others” (p. 2).
Philosophical Hermeneutics	Addresses the role of the critic’s subjectivity and argues for objective standards to counteract extreme relativism.	“Men can correct their biases… rise above temporal and local limitations, aim at objectivity, arrive at some knowledge and truth” (p. 14).
Canon Formation	Engages with the debates around the literary canon, arguing for the acknowledgment of universally recognized classics.	“There is… a very wide agreement on the great classics: the main canon of literature” (p. 16).
Universal Humanism	Advocates for the universality of literature, asserting that works from diverse cultures resonate with shared human experiences.	“There is a common humanity which makes every art remote in time and place… accessible and enjoyable to us” (p. 18).

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

Literary Work	Type of Critique	Application of Wellek’s Concepts	Reference from Article
Milton’s Poetry	Evaluation and ranking of works based on their intellectual and aesthetic richness.	Wellek critiques the rejection of value judgments in Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism, emphasizing that Milton offers deeper intellectual engagement than lesser poets like Blackmore.	“Milton is a more rewarding and suggestive poet to work with than Blackmore” (p. 6).
Shakespeare’s Plays	Balancing historical context with intrinsic textual analysis for interpretation.	Wellek critiques pure historical readings that ignore a work’s intrinsic values, emphasizing the interplay between history and criticism in understanding Shakespeare.	“We cannot simply interpret Hamlet in terms of the hypothetical views of Shakespeare or his audience” (p. 15).
Marvell’s “Horatian Ode”	Historical context as a supplementary tool for understanding, not as definitive.	Discussing Cleanth Brooks’s interpretation, Wellek shows how historical information aids textual understanding while maintaining the poem’s autonomy as a work of art.	“The poem has to be read as a poem… historical evidence cannot finally determine what the poem says” (p. 7).
Herbert’s “Sacrifice”	Critique of misinterpretations stemming from arbitrary or speculative readings.	Wellek highlights the need for a balance between historical context and textual fidelity, critiquing Empson’s overly speculative analysis of Herbert’s poem.	“Miss Tuve seems right in insisting that ‘I must climb the tree’ means only ‘I must ascend the cross'” (p. 9).

Criticism Against “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

1. Ambiguity in Defining Disciplinary Boundaries
   While Wellek emphasizes the distinctions among literary theory, criticism, and history, critics argue that his definitions are sometimes vague and that these disciplines are more fluid in practice than he acknowledges.
2. Overemphasis on Systematic Knowledge
   Critics of structuralist or formalist approaches might argue that Wellek’s focus on “systematic knowledge” risks reducing literature to abstract principles, neglecting its emotional, cultural, and individual significance.
3. Limited Engagement with Postmodern and Non-Western Perspectives
   Wellek’s framework heavily relies on Western aesthetic and philosophical traditions, potentially marginalizing postmodern theories or non-Western literary approaches.
4. Resistance to Radical Historicism
   While Wellek critiques extreme historicism, some scholars argue that his stance underestimates the importance of socio-political and cultural contexts in shaping literature.
5. Dismissal of Relativism
   Wellek’s critique of relativism is seen by some as overly rigid, dismissing the valuable insights that historical and cultural relativism can provide in understanding diverse literary traditions.
6. Neglect of Reader-Response and Subjectivity
   His focus on systematic and objective analysis has been criticized for neglecting the subjective experience of readers and the variability of interpretations across audiences.
7. Potential Hierarchization of Literary Disciplines
   Critics suggest that Wellek implicitly prioritizes theory over criticism and history, despite his stated intention to treat all three disciplines as equally significant.
8. Resistance to New Theoretical Trends
   Wellek’s arguments appear rooted in mid-20th-century literary debates, potentially limiting their relevance to later theoretical developments such as post-structuralism and feminist theory.
9. Insufficient Attention to Popular or Marginalized Literatures
   His focus on canonical works and “great classics” has been criticized for excluding popular, marginalized, or experimental literary forms from scholarly consideration.

Representative Quotations from “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literary theory is the study of the principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like.”	This defines literary theory as the systematic exploration of the structures and norms that govern literature, laying a foundation for analytical and evaluative approaches in literary studies.
“Literary theory without criticism or history, or criticism without theory or history, or history without theory and criticism, is inconceivable.”	Wellek emphasizes the interdependence of the three disciplines, arguing that they are essential and inseparable for a holistic understanding of literature.
“The term ‘literary theory’ is preferable to ‘science of literature’ because ‘science’ in English has become limited to natural science.”	Wellek critiques the term “science of literature” for its misleading implications, preferring “literary theory” as it better encapsulates the humanistic and evaluative aspects of studying literature.
“Criticism is conceptual knowledge, or aims at such knowledge. It must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature, at literary theory.”	Criticism, for Wellek, is not mere opinion but a structured, systematic pursuit of knowledge that contributes to the development of literary theory.
“A literary work of art is a verbal structure of a certain coherence and wholeness.”	This quotation reflects Wellek’s formalist leanings, asserting that literature must be studied as a coherent verbal artifact, independent of external biographical or historical contexts.
“The assumption of one eternal, narrowly defined standard had to be abandoned…but complete relativism is equally untenable.”	Wellek rejects both absolutism and extreme relativism, advocating for a balanced approach that recognizes enduring aesthetic standards while allowing for historical and cultural variability.
“Close reading has led to pedantries and aberrations…but it is surely here to stay.”	While acknowledging the limitations and excesses of close reading, Wellek defends its necessity as a methodological cornerstone of literary analysis.
“History cannot absorb or replace theory, while theory should not even dream of absorbing history.”	Wellek underlines the distinct but complementary roles of history and theory, advocating for their collaborative yet independent contributions to literary studies.
“Evaluation grows out of understanding: correct evaluation out of correct understanding.”	This highlights Wellek’s belief in the foundational role of interpretive accuracy in making sound evaluative judgments about literature.
“Literature…is a chorus of voices—articulate throughout the ages—which asserts man’s defiance of time and destiny.”	Wellek celebrates the timeless and universal nature of literature, portraying it as a collective human achievement that transcends historical and cultural boundaries.

Suggested Readings: “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

1. Wellek, René, and Rene Wellek. “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 68, no. 1, 1960, pp. 1–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27540551. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. Rowlett, John L., editor. “Reviewing Criticism: Literary Theory.” Genre Theory and Historical Change: Theoretical Essays of Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia Press, 2017, pp. 122–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xtv6.12. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. Galinsky, Hans. “Literary Criticism in Literary History: A Comparative View of the ‘Uses of the Past’ in Recent American and European Histories of American Literature.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 1964, pp. 31–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40245625. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
4. TOBER, KARL. “THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF LITERARY CRITICISM.” Colloquia Germanica, vol. 1, 1967, pp. 121–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23980066. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.