Introduction: “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
“Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the summer of 1976 in Comparative Literature, published by Duke University Press on behalf of the University of Oregon. This article explores the evolving paradigms of literary criticism, especially in the context of the waning dominance of New Criticism. Culler critiques the interpretive fixation of New Criticism, which emphasizes the autonomy of the text and the primacy of close reading, arguing that it constrains the broader theoretical ambitions of literary studies. He advocates for a shift away from the relentless production of interpretations toward a deeper understanding of literature as a cultural institution interwoven with various forms of discourse. The essay is crucial in literary theory as it identifies limitations in conventional criticism and calls for a reconceptualization of literature’s role within historical, social, and psychological contexts, influencing later critical movements like structuralism, post-structuralism, and intertextuality. Its enduring importance lies in challenging critics to expand their theoretical approaches beyond the boundaries of textual interpretation.
Summary of “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
1. Critique of New Criticism’s Legacy
Jonathan Culler highlights the hegemony of New Criticism in post-WWII literary studies, which emphasized the autonomy of texts and “close reading” as the cornerstone of literary education. While its focus on textual unity democratized literary analysis, it also fostered a narrow commitment to interpretation, constraining broader theoretical exploration (Culler 244–245).
2. Interpretation as a Limiting Framework
Culler critiques the pervasive assumption that the primary role of critics is to interpret texts. This interpretive focus, rooted in the New Criticism, prioritizes thematic unity and internal coherence, often at the expense of exploring literature’s broader social, historical, and psychological dimensions (Culler 246–247).
3. Call for Theoretical Reorientation
Rather than generating endless interpretations, Culler advocates for theoretical projects that explore literature’s institutional and cultural roles. He calls for a typology of discourse, a theory of fiction, and a systematic understanding of the interrelations between literary texts and other societal forms of meaning-making (Culler 247–248).
4. Limitations of Alternative Critical Movements
Culler examines three critical approaches that failed to transcend the interpretive paradigm:
- Northrop Frye’s Archetypal Criticism: Although Frye aimed to establish a systematic poetics, his work became a tool for interpretation, reinforcing traditional criticism rather than advancing poetics (Culler 248–249).
- Psychoanalytic Criticism: Psychoanalytic approaches often reduced themselves to interpretive methods, exemplified by works like Frederick Crews’ The Sins of the Fathers, which applied Freudian analysis to individual texts instead of addressing broader psychological insights about fiction (Culler 249).
- Stanley Fish’s Affective Stylistics: Fish’s reader-response focus underscored the temporality of reading but failed to develop a comprehensive theory of interpretation, limiting its potential to reshape critical practice (Culler 250–251).
5. Influence of European Criticism
Culler turns to contemporary European criticism, particularly structuralism and intertextuality, to challenge the dominance of interpretive criticism. He emphasizes that reading is inherently relational and shaped by the interplay of multiple texts and cultural codes, as articulated by Roland Barthes (Culler 253–254).
6. Toward a New Critical Enterprise
Culler calls for criticism to move beyond interpretation and embrace the study of literature as a dynamic cultural and historical phenomenon. He advocates for dialectical and historical approaches, such as Fredric Jameson’s Marxist criticism, which contextualizes literary forms within broader social paradigms (Culler 254–255).
7. Deformalization and Literary History
Culler identifies a shift from formalist to deformalist criticism, particularly among Yale critics like Harold Bloom and Paul de Man, who frame interpretation as historical error. This perspective opens new theoretical pathways by examining why interpretive practices emerge and persist (Culler 255–256).
8. A Vision for Future Criticism
Culler concludes by envisioning a more theoretically sophisticated literary criticism that prioritizes understanding the conventions and systems enabling literature’s creation and reception. He urges critics to explore literature’s intertextual and cultural complexities, resisting the reductive focus on textual interpretation (Culler 256).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Context in Culler’s Argument |
| New Criticism | A dominant literary approach emphasizing textual autonomy, unity, and “close reading.” | Culler critiques its focus on interpretation and its limitations for advancing broader literary theory (Culler 244–245). |
| Textual Autonomy | The principle that a literary work is an independent whole, separate from external contexts. | Foundational to New Criticism, but limits engagement with historical, social, and psychological contexts (Culler 246). |
| Interpretation | The process of deriving meaning from a literary text, often through thematic unity and coherence. | Critiqued as overly restrictive; Culler advocates exploring other critical methods (Culler 246–247). |
| Thematic Unity | The idea that all parts of a text contribute to a coherent, unified meaning. | A central focus of New Criticism that reinforces interpretive approaches (Culler 247). |
| Intertextuality | The concept that a text derives meaning through its relationship to other texts. | Emphasized as an alternative to interpretive criticism, influenced by Roland Barthes (Culler 253–254). |
| Reader-Response Theory | A theory that focuses on the reader’s role in creating meaning through the act of reading. | Explored through Stanley Fish’s “affective stylistics,” critiqued for not advancing a comprehensive theory (Culler 251). |
| Structuralist Poetics | A systematic approach to studying literature based on structures and conventions of language and form. | Advocated as a means to go beyond interpretation and explore literary systems (Culler 254–255). |
| Archetypal Criticism | A method of interpretation focusing on recurring symbols and patterns in literature. | Critiqued for reinforcing interpretive goals instead of advancing systematic poetics (Culler 248). |
| Historical Criticism | The study of literature’s relationship to its historical and social contexts. | Encouraged as a means to understand literature’s institutional and cultural roles (Culler 254–255). |
| Dialectical Criticism | A Marxist-inspired approach examining the interplay between literature and its social and historical forms. | Highlighted in Fredric Jameson’s work as a model for moving beyond textual interpretation (Culler 254–255). |
Contribution of “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Critique of New Criticism
- Contribution: Culler critiques the limitations of New Criticism, particularly its focus on textual autonomy, close reading, and thematic unity.
- Theory/Approach: New Criticism.
- Impact: He highlights how New Criticism’s commitment to interpretation as the primary critical task has constrained broader theoretical inquiries.
- Reference: “The most important and insidious legacy of the New Criticism is the widespread and unquestioning acceptance of the notion that the critic’s job is to interpret literary works” (Culler 245).
2. Advancing Structuralist Poetics
- Contribution: Culler advocates for structuralist approaches that focus on the conventions, systems, and operations of literature rather than on individual textual interpretations.
- Theory/Approach: Structuralism.
- Impact: He calls for a systematic poetics that investigates how literature operates as a discourse, moving beyond thematic interpretation.
- Reference: “To engage in the study of literature is… to advance one’s understanding of the conventions and operations of an institution, a mode of discourse” (Culler 246).
3. Emphasis on Intertextuality
- Contribution: Culler introduces the concept of intertextuality as essential to understanding literature. Texts are not autonomous but exist in relation to other texts, genres, and cultural codes.
- Theory/Approach: Post-Structuralism and Intertextuality.
- Impact: He positions intertextuality as a way to understand the dynamic and interconnected nature of texts, influenced by thinkers like Roland Barthes.
- Reference: “To read a work as literature is inevitably and necessarily to read it in relation to other texts, past and present” (Culler 253).
4. Reassessing Reader-Response Theory
- Contribution: By discussing Stanley Fish’s “affective stylistics,” Culler underscores the importance of the reader’s role in creating meaning but critiques the lack of a comprehensive theory of reading.
- Theory/Approach: Reader-Response Theory.
- Impact: He calls for a more systematic account of “literary competence” to better understand how readers process and interpret texts.
- Reference: “Understanding literature is not a matter of understanding literary texts but of studying the activity of interpretation” (Culler 252).
5. Contribution to Historical Criticism
- Contribution: Culler argues for a deeper historical understanding of literature as an institution, rather than focusing solely on individual works.
- Theory/Approach: Historical Criticism and New Historicism.
- Impact: He suggests that criticism should explore the historical and social functions of literature within broader cultural systems.
- Reference: “We have only fragmentary or anecdotal histories of literature as an institution: we need a fuller exploration of its historical relation to other forms of discourse” (Culler 246).
6. Dialectical Criticism and Marxist Theory
- Contribution: Drawing on Fredric Jameson’s work, Culler highlights the potential of dialectical criticism to explore the historical and social conditions that necessitate interpretation.
- Theory/Approach: Marxist Literary Criticism.
- Impact: He promotes an understanding of literature as part of the interplay of social and historical realities, emphasizing its forms rather than content alone.
- Reference: “The interplay between a literary work and its historical ground lies in the way that the work’s form and formal devices assimilate, transform, or supplement a culture’s ways of producing meaning” (Culler 254).
7. Deconstruction of Interpretation
- Contribution: Culler critiques the primacy of interpretation in literary studies, suggesting it limits the scope of criticism to thematic unification.
- Theory/Approach: Deconstruction.
- Impact: Inspired by post-structuralist thought, he views interpretation as a limiting construct and argues for a theoretical focus on the systems that enable meaning.
- Reference: “Criticism has been dominated by the interpretive project to such an extent that alternative modes of inquiry are subsumed or neutralized” (Culler 253).
8. Contribution to Psychoanalytic Criticism
- Contribution: He critiques psychoanalytic criticism for confining itself to interpretive goals rather than exploring literature’s broader psychological effects on readers and writers.
- Theory/Approach: Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism.
- Impact: Culler calls for psychoanalytic criticism to address larger questions about fiction’s status, role, and psychological operations.
- Reference: “We ought to understand much more than we do about the effects of fictional discourse” (Culler 246).
Examples of Critiques Through “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Critique Through Culler’s Lens | Key Concepts Applied | Explanation |
| Shakespeare’s King Lear | Critique of the endless pursuit of thematic interpretation that focuses on individual textual analysis. | New Criticism, Limitations of Interpretive Criticism | Instead of interpreting King Lear as a unified thematic whole, Culler would argue for studying its intertextual connections, conventions, and discursive impact. |
| Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter | Psychoanalytic interpretations often reduce the text to Oedipal conflicts, limiting broader exploration of its cultural and social functions. | Psychoanalytic Criticism, Effects of Fictional Discourse | Culler critiques the focus on resolving psychological “oddities” and calls for an investigation into the broader psychological and societal dynamics at play. |
| T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land | The poem’s richness is often constrained by attempts to decode its symbolic unity or authorial intent. | Intertextuality, Beyond the Authorial Intent | Culler would advocate for viewing The Waste Land as an intertextual mosaic, exploring its connections to other texts and its function within literary conventions. |
| Conrad’s Heart of Darkness | Critics often focus on the moral ambiguity and themes of colonialism, neglecting the work’s form and its historical role as discourse. | Historical Criticism, Dialectical Criticism | Culler suggests moving beyond thematic interpretation to analyze how the text reflects and transforms the paradigms of colonial and historical discourse. |
Criticism Against “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
- Overemphasis on Institutional Critique
Critics argue that Culler’s focus on literature as a “mode of discourse” sidelines the importance of engaging directly with the aesthetic and affective aspects of individual texts, potentially alienating readers from the literary experience. - Neglect of Reader-Text Dynamics
While Culler critiques interpretive criticism, some scholars contend that interpretation is an integral part of the reading process. Ignoring the reader’s active role in generating meaning risks oversimplifying the complex relationship between text and audience. - Practical Challenges to Abandoning Interpretation
Culler’s call to move beyond interpretation is seen by some as idealistic and impractical, as interpretation remains a central method in teaching, appreciating, and analyzing literature. - Ambiguity in Alternative Approaches
Critics highlight that Culler’s proposed alternatives, such as intertextuality and exploring institutional conventions, lack clear methodologies, leaving questions about how to apply his theories in practical literary analysis. - Undermining of Traditional Literary Criticism
By rejecting interpretation as the core of criticism, Culler risks dismissing a foundational practice in literary studies, leading to concerns about the marginalization of established critical traditions. - Eurocentrism in Theoretical Foundations
Some have pointed out that Culler’s reliance on European critical theories, such as structuralism and post-structuralism, may overshadow diverse critical traditions and perspectives from other cultural contexts. - Potential for Reductive Approaches
By advocating for systemic and institutional critique, there is a risk of reducing complex literary works to mere examples of broader cultural or institutional processes, thereby neglecting their individuality and nuance.
Representative Quotations from “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The most important and insidious legacy of the New Criticism is the widespread and unquestioning acceptance of the notion that the critic’s job is to interpret literary works.” | Culler critiques the dominance of interpretation in literary criticism, arguing that it limits the field by equating literary understanding solely with interpretation. |
| “To engage in the study of literature is not to produce yet another interpretation of King Lear but to advance one’s understanding of the conventions and operations of an institution, a mode of discourse.” | The emphasis shifts from interpreting individual works to analyzing the broader systems and conventions that shape literature as a social and cultural institution. |
| “The poem is not simply a series of sentences; it is spoken by a persona, who expresses an attitude to be defined.” | This highlights the New Criticism’s focus on the internal coherence of a text and the persona’s role in shaping its meaning, which Culler argues narrows the scope of criticism. |
| “We need a more sophisticated and apposite account of the role of literature in the psychological economies of both writers and readers.” | Culler calls for a more comprehensive understanding of literature’s societal and psychological functions, rather than focusing on isolated textual interpretations. |
| “Reading is never a natural and innocent activity.” | This underscores the idea that reading is shaped by cultural and intertextual contexts, challenging the New Criticism’s notion of approaching texts without preconceived notions. |
| “The New Criticism’s dream of a fresh and unprejudiced approach to each autonomous artifact is not only impossible but fundamentally misconceived.” | Culler critiques the New Criticism for its idealization of textual autonomy and argues for an intertextual and contextual approach to reading literature. |
| “The meaning of a work is not something it contains, in spatial fashion, but the experience which results from the linear and temporal processing of its components.” | This redefines meaning as an experiential and dynamic process, aligning with theories like Stanley Fish’s reader-response criticism. |
| “Criticism has made almost no progress toward a comprehensive theory of fictions.” | Culler critiques the lack of development in literary criticism towards understanding fiction’s role, highlighting the reliance on outdated notions like dramatic illusion and identification. |
| “To analyze a poem was to show how all its parts contributed to a complex statement about human problems.” | Culler critiques this reductive approach of the New Criticism, where the primary goal is to unify the text’s elements into a singular thematic statement. |
| “The literary work participates in a variety of systems, plays among a series of languages.” | This emphasizes the intertextuality of literature, suggesting that texts are inherently part of broader linguistic, cultural, and discursive systems, and cannot be understood in isolation. |
Suggested Readings: “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
- Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
- Culler, Jonathan. “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism.” Comparative Literature, vol. 28, no. 3, 1976, pp. 244–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1769220. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
- Mailloux, Steven. “Reading in Critical Theory.” MLN, vol. 96, no. 5, 1981, pp. 1149–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2906242. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
- Peck, Jeffrey M. “Advanced Literary Study as Cultural Study: A Redefinition of the Discipline.” Profession, 1985, pp. 49–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595374. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.