Category: Theory Article Summaries

1. Contribution to Comparative Literature Theory

• Redefinition of Comparative Literature’s Role: Dev moves beyond the traditional view of comparative literature as a passive intermediary between literary history and literary theory. Instead, he positions it as an active and dynamic field that navigates between these domains.
  • Reference: “Comparative literature flanked by ‘literary history’ and ‘literary theory’ be our signified order” (Dev, p. 24).
• Balancing National and World Literature: He critiques the binary opposition between national and world literature and proposes an integrated approach.
  • Reference: “Instead of being antinomous, national and world literature would be complementary and part of the same process” (Dev, p. 26).
• Critique of the French School’s Historical Positivism: Dev challenges the French school’s rigid emphasis on “rapports de fait,” advocating for a more dynamic and intertextual approach.
  • Reference: “Comparative literature’s affiliation to nineteenth-century historicism was particularly expressed in the ‘de fait'” (Dev, p. 27).

2. Contribution to World Literature Theory

• Extension of Goethe’s Weltliteratur Concept: Dev builds upon Goethe’s and Marx-Engels’ Weltliteratur, arguing that world literature should not be seen as a static body of texts but as an evolving process.
  • Reference: “Goethe’s prophetic utterance on Weltliteratur and Marx and Engels’ scientific endorsement of that were at one level a question of this conspectus” (Dev, p. 25).
• Integration of East European Perspectives: He introduces the East European approach, particularly Dionýz Ďurišin’s theory, which sees world literature as a dynamic field rather than an amorphous entity.
  • Reference: “The Czech theorist Dionýz Ďurišin… has not only authenticated national literature but assigned a dynamic place to world literature” (Dev, p. 27).

3. Contribution to Literary Historicism

• Critique of Traditional Literary History: Dev argues that literary history has lost its former prestige and has been overtaken by literary theory, yet it remains foundational to comparative literature.
  • Reference: “Literary history had lost its nineteenth-century eminence and been pushed to routine ruminations” (Dev, p. 28).
• Re-evaluating Hans Robert Jauss’s Approach: While acknowledging Jauss’s Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, he critiques the lack of a concrete theoretical challenge to literary history.
  • Reference: “Certainly the kind of literary history that Jauss advances is simple and smacks of theorization by proxy” (Dev, p. 29).

4. Contribution to Structuralism and Formalism

• Influence of Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism: Dev highlights how comparative literature, after detaching from literary history, has been influenced by Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism, which emphasize textual structures and formal analysis.
  • Reference: “The East European school emerging in the sixties and the seventies had its prime inspiration from Russian Formalism and Czech Structuralism” (Dev, p. 28).
• Bridging Historical Positivism and Structuralist Analysis: He suggests that comparative literature should incorporate both historical and formalist methodologies instead of being confined to either.
  • Reference: “The comparatist’s task is no longer to show brinkmanship and be unscathed by both national and world literature, but exercise full concern and involvement with them” (Dev, p. 26).

5. Contribution to Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

• Subversion of Traditional Binaries: Dev challenges the idea that literary history and literary theory are opposing forces, suggesting that comparative literature dissolves rigid distinctions between the two.
  • Reference: “There are only literary history and literary theory and a hyphen between them. The comparatist is that hyphen” (Dev, p. 32).
• The Power of the “And” (A Derridean Perspective): Dev’s interpretation of the and in his title aligns with poststructuralist thought, where seemingly neutral linguistic elements carry subversive meanings.
  • Reference: “The ‘and’ in my title is not a simple-minded conjunction… It may in fact be quite subversive” (Dev, p. 24).

6. Contribution to Reception Theory and Reader-Response Criticism

• Comparative Literature as a Reader-Oriented Field: Dev implies that comparative literature is shaped not just by historical and theoretical contexts but also by how readers and scholars engage with texts. This aligns with Jauss’s reception theory.
  • Reference: “Comparative literature to them is the portals but theory the shrine” (Dev, p. 30).

1. Overemphasis on the Metaphor of Scylla and Charybdis

• Dev’s use of the Scylla and Charybdis metaphor to describe the position of comparative literature between literary history and literary theory is evocative but arguably reductive.
• This framing suggests an unnecessary struggle when, in reality, disciplines can coexist without inherent peril (Dev, p. 25).

2. Ambiguity in the Role of Comparative Literature

• While Dev rejects the idea of comparative literature as merely navigating between literary history and literary theory, he does not clearly define its independent methodological framework.
• His conclusion that comparative literature is the “hyphen” between literary history and literary theory leaves room for ambiguity rather than a concrete theoretical position (Dev, p. 32).

3. Inconsistency in the Treatment of Literary History

• Dev acknowledges the decline of literary history’s prominence but simultaneously argues that it remains fundamental to comparative literature.
• This dual stance creates an inconsistency—if literary history has lost its intellectual authority, why must comparative literature remain rooted in it? (Dev, p. 28-29).

4. Eurocentric Focus Despite Acknowledgment of East European Thought

• Although Dev highlights the contributions of East European scholars like Dionýz Ďurišin, his primary theoretical engagements remain within Western literary frameworks (French historicism, Russian Formalism, Jauss’s reception theory).
• The essay lacks engagement with non-European perspectives, such as postcolonial literary history or comparative frameworks outside the Western canon (Dev, p. 27).

5. Limited Engagement with Postcolonial and Global South Perspectives

• Dev does not sufficiently address how comparative literature functions in postcolonial studies, where national and world literatures interact in ways beyond the European model.
• He does not explore how his theory applies to literatures from Africa, South Asia, or Latin America, which challenge traditional historical and theoretical narratives (Dev, p. 26).

6. Lack of Concrete Methodology for Comparative Literature

• Dev argues that comparative literature should move organically between literary history and literary theory but does not provide a clear methodological framework for this process.
• How should a comparatist engage with texts without falling into the binaries he critiques? The essay does not answer this sufficiently (Dev, p. 30).

7. Underestimation of the Autonomy of Literary Theory

• Dev suggests that literary theory has overshadowed literary history in modern scholarship, but he does not fully acknowledge that literary theory itself has become a distinct and legitimate field, independent of historical frameworks (Dev, p. 29-30).
• He treats literary theory as a force “pulling” comparative literature rather than recognizing its evolving role in shaping literary studies.

8. Insufficient Addressing of Digital Humanities and Contemporary Literary Studies

• The essay does not account for the rise of digital humanities and computational literary analysis, which challenge both traditional literary history and established theoretical frameworks.
• Newer methodologies, such as corpus-based literary studies and network theory, complicate Dev’s tripartite model but are left unaddressed (Dev, p. 32).

1. Key Discoveries in Girard’s Intellectual Journey

Girard identifies three major breakthroughs in his thought: mimetic desire and rivalry, the scapegoat mechanism, and the unique revelation of the Bible (Girard, 1997, p. 249). His realization that human desires are imitative (mimetic) laid the foundation for his theory that societies stabilize themselves through scapegoating. He further claims that the Passion of Christ reveals and disrupts this hidden social mechanism (p. 250).

2. Christianity and the Exposure of the Scapegoat Mechanism

Unlike myths, which conceal the injustice of scapegoating, the Bible makes the victim’s innocence explicit. Girard argues that the Gospels do not promote scapegoating but unveil it, correcting the misunderstanding of many theologians who see Christianity as a scapegoat religion (p. 250). He compares this to the Dreyfus Affair, where those defending Dreyfus were paradoxically accused of scapegoating (p. 251).

3. Historical and Literary Parallels to Scapegoating

Girard illustrates scapegoating through Joan of Arc, whose divinization or demonization parallels how societies treat scapegoats (p. 251). Similarly, Herod’s belief in John the Baptist’s resurrection reflects how myths arise from scapegoated figures (p. 252). The Gospels differ by acknowledging the victim’s innocence, setting Christianity apart from other religions and myths.

4. Christianity as a Non-Sacrificial Religion

Girard challenges the traditional sacrificial reading of Christianity, distinguishing between sacrifice as murder and sacrifice as renunciation (p. 253). He credits Nietzsche with recognizing Christianity’s uniqueness in defending victims rather than justifying sacrifice, though Nietzsche rejected this ethic as harmful to society (p. 254).

5. The Role of the Passion in Understanding Scapegoating

The Passion of Christ provides a clear anthropological revelation of the scapegoat mechanism. The denial of Peter illustrates how even close followers succumb to scapegoating pressure (p. 255). Christ’s unwavering refusal to participate in mimetic rivalry demonstrates an alternative to violence, which Girard sees as the true meaning of atonement (p. 256).

6. The Gospels’ Narrative Against Violence and Exclusion

Girard critiques how Christianity has been misused to justify violence, particularly against Jews (p. 257). He argues that the New Testament does not single out Jewish authorities but implicates all of humanity in scapegoating Jesus. He likens this to the myth of Purusha in the Vedas, where a victim’s dismemberment creates social order—a dynamic the Gospels expose and reject (p. 258).

7. Theological Implications: Christ as the True Scapegoat

Girard ultimately accepts the scapegoat label for Christ, but only in reverse: rather than a society-constructed scapegoat, Christ consciously takes on the role to expose its injustice (p. 259). He interprets Isaiah 53’s Suffering Servant as a precursor to this revelation (p. 260).

8. Rethinking Atonement and Sacrifice

Girard critiques the satisfaction theory of atonement, arguing instead for an atonement based on reconciliation rather than divine retribution (p. 261). He supports Jean-Luc Marion’s idea of a “God without the sacred”, meaning a God free from the violent mechanisms of human religion (p. 262).

Conclusion

Girard’s interview presents Christianity as a unique revelation that unmasks and transcends the scapegoat mechanism. His theories challenge traditional readings of sacrifice and atonement, offering a non-violent, anthropological interpretation of the Gospel. Christianity, in his view, subverts sacred violence rather than perpetuating it, making it a pivotal force in human history (p. 263).

1. Mimetic Theory and Literary Desire

• Girard’s theory of mimetic desire has a profound impact on literary theory, particularly in the study of character motivation and narrative conflict.
• He argues that human desire is imitative rather than autonomous, which shapes literary plots, character interactions, and conflicts (Girard, 1997, p. 249).
• This aligns with his earlier work in Deceit, Desire, and the Novel, where he demonstrated how classic literary figures (e.g., Don Quixote, Emma Bovary) exhibit mimetic patterns of desire.
• Reference: “First was mimetic desire and rivalry, when I realized that it accounted for so much” (p. 249).

2. Scapegoat Mechanism in Myth and Narrative Structure

• Many literary works encode the scapegoat mechanism, wherein a character or group is blamed and expelled to resolve social tensions.
• Girard’s reading of the Passion as an exposure of scapegoating influences the analysis of myth, tragedy, and religious narratives.
• Classical and modern tragedies—from Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex to Shakespeare’s King Lear—follow the scapegoat pattern Girard identifies.
• Reference: “The second was the discovery of the scapegoat mechanism. This basically completed the mimetic theory” (p. 249).

3. The Bible as an Alternative Literary Model to Myth

• Girard contrasts the Gospels with traditional myth, arguing that myths conceal the victim’s innocence, whereas the Bible exposes the mechanics of sacrifice and violence.
• This insight influences poststructuralist and deconstructive readings that question dominant sacrificial paradigms in literature.
• Reference: “The Gospels seem so close to myth in a way, and yet they are poles apart” (p. 251).

4. Christianity as a Non-Sacrificial Narrative Model

• Unlike traditional myths that validate sacrifice, Christianity subverts the sacrificial logic found in literature and religious texts.
• This insight informs literary ethical criticism, which examines whether texts endorse or critique violence and exclusion.
• Girard’s reading of Joan of Arc’s trial exemplifies how scapegoats are demonized or divinized, a pattern seen in literary figures from Hester Prynne to Frankenstein’s creature.
• Reference: “The people who put her on trial divinized her, or ‘demonized’ her, in the sense of regarding her as a witch” (p. 251).

5. Girard and Nietzsche: The Literary Struggle Between Victim and Power

• Girard builds on Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity but inverts its conclusions—whereas Nietzsche saw the Gospel’s defense of victims as weakness, Girard sees it as a revolutionary transformation of human culture.
• This has implications for political literary theory, especially in postcolonial and feminist readings that critique structures of oppression.
• Reference: “Nietzsche was the first thinker to see clearly that the singularity of Judeo-Christianity was that it rehabilitates victims myths would regard as justly immolated” (p. 254).

6. Political Correctness and Literary Representation of Victims

• Girard’s discussion of political correctness (PC) and scapegoating influences the study of literature that engages with social justice, victimization, and power relations.
• His work raises questions about whether some modern narratives perpetuate or dismantle scapegoating structures.
• Reference: “The upholders of PC can find a strange kind of support in his writings. He was entranced with violent differentiation” (p. 251).

7. Atonement Theory and Literary Redemption Arcs

• Girard’s distinction between satisfaction-based atonement and reconciliation-based atonement affects the study of redemption narratives.
• Many modern novels, dramas, and films (e.g., Les Misérables, Crime and Punishment) explore whether atonement requires sacrifice or transformation.
• Reference: “Atonement is ‘at-one-ment,’ becoming reconciled with God, and this is the work of Christ” (p. 261).

8. The “God Without the Sacred” and Postmodern Literary Criticism

• Girard’s rejection of sacred violence challenges theological and philosophical readings of Western literature’s portrayal of God and the sacred.
• This relates to Derrida’s deconstruction of logocentrism, questioning whether traditional texts reinforce or resist sacrificial logic.
• Reference: “‘God without being’ could be translated as ‘God without the sacred’—God without sacred violence, God without scapegoating” (p. 262).

1. Overgeneralization of Mimetic Desire

• Critics argue that not all human desires are mimetic and that some desires are autonomous or biologically driven rather than purely imitative.
• Girard’s theory downplays individual agency and the role of personal will in shaping human behavior.
• Counterpoint: While mimetic desire is influential, human motivation is complex and cannot be entirely reduced to imitation.

2. Reductionist View of Myth and Religion

• Girard suggests that all myths conceal the scapegoat mechanism, while the Bible uniquely reveals it.
• However, some scholars argue that other religious traditions also critique violence and sacrifice, such as aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, and indigenous spirituality.
• Counterpoint: His binary view—myth obscures, Christianity reveals—oversimplifies the diversity of religious traditions.

3. Questionable Interpretation of Christianity’s Uniqueness

• Girard’s claim that Christianity uniquely exposes the scapegoat mechanism is seen as Christian exceptionalism, which ignores other traditions that critique violence.
• Critics point out that Jewish prophetic literature and other religious texts also reveal the injustice of scapegoating.
• Counterpoint: The Bible does emphasize the innocence of the victim, but this does not mean it is the only tradition to do so.

4. Ambiguity in the Role of Sacrifice in Christianity

• Girard shifts between rejecting and accepting sacrifice, making his stance on Christian atonement unclear.
• He initially rejects the traditional sacrificial reading of Christ’s death but later accepts the idea of sacrifice as renunciation.
• Counterpoint: His distinction between sacrifice as murder and sacrifice as renunciation is insightful but lacks precision in defining how Christ’s death functions theologically.

5. Misinterpretation of Nietzsche’s Critique of Christianity

• Girard argues that Nietzsche misunderstood Christianity’s concern for victims (p. 254), but some scholars suggest that Girard misrepresents Nietzsche’s position.
• Nietzsche criticized Christian morality as an oppressive force that weakens human potential, rather than simply failing to understand the scapegoat mechanism.
• Counterpoint: Girard’s reading of Nietzsche is too one-sided, missing the nuance in Nietzsche’s critique of resentment and power dynamics.

6. Inconsistencies in Historical and Literary Comparisons

• While Girard uses examples like Joan of Arc, the Dreyfus Affair, and biblical narratives, critics argue these comparisons oversimplify historical complexities.
• For example, Joan of Arc’s trial was political and gendered, not just a case of scapegoating.
• Counterpoint: While these examples illustrate Girard’s theory, they risk ignoring other socio-political factors beyond scapegoating.

7. Underestimating Structural and Systemic Violence

• Girard’s focus on scapegoating as a social mechanism does not fully account for institutionalized and systemic violence such as colonialism, racism, and capitalism.
• His theory emphasizes individual and communal violence but does not address structural oppression as effectively as Marxist or postcolonial critiques.
• Counterpoint: The scapegoat mechanism may still be a foundational insight, but Girard does not extend it sufficiently to systemic violence.

8. Political Correctness and Victimhood Critique Lacks Nuance

• Girard’s skepticism about political correctness (PC) and modern victimhood narratives is ambiguous and potentially dismissive of legitimate social justice movements.
• Some critics argue that he misinterprets PC as a misguided continuation of scapegoating rather than a response to historical injustices.
• Counterpoint: While some uses of victimhood can be problematic, Girard’s critique does not fully engage with the positive role of victim-centered discourse in human rights advocacy.

1. Overemphasis on Pragmatism and Economic Factors

• Sheeran downplays the symbolic and mythological importance of landscape in literature by arguing that it should be understood through lived experience, economic forces, and modernization (Sheeran, 2003, p. 154).
• Some critics argue that landscapes in literature serve both symbolic and practical functions, and Sheeran’s insistence on a pragmatic view limits deeper interpretations in literary studies.

2. Dismissal of Romantic and Nationalist Literary Traditions

• Sheeran critiques Yeats, Synge, and others for mythologizing the Irish west, but some scholars argue that these representations are integral to Irish cultural identity rather than mere literary constructs (p. 156).
• His argument that nationalist mythmaking distorts reality has been contested by critics who view these myths as essential to Ireland’s postcolonial literary identity.

3. Underestimation of the Role of Folklore and Oral Tradition

• Sheeran argues that works like Cre na Cille are more influenced by European literature than Irish oral traditions (p. 152).
• Critics argue that folklore and oral storytelling deeply shape Irish literature, and Sheeran undervalues their role in constructing the landscape’s literary identity.

4. Limited Engagement with Postcolonial Theory

• While Sheeran acknowledges the postcolonial critique of landscape, he does not fully explore how colonial history shaped Irish geography and literary depictions (p. 156).
• Postcolonial scholars argue that Irish literature must be analyzed within a framework of cultural resistance, which Sheeran does not fully integrate into his argument.

5. Lack of Focus on Contemporary Irish Literature

• Sheeran primarily critiques canonical works (Yeats, Joyce, Synge, Ó Cadhain) but does not apply his framework to contemporary Irish literature.
• Critics suggest that his arguments would benefit from an engagement with modern Irish writers who depict Ireland’s evolving landscapes.

6. Underrepresentation of the Irish Language and Non-English Literary Traditions

• Sheeran’s analysis is largely centered on English-language Irish literature, with minimal engagement with Irish-language texts (p. 152).
• This oversight is significant because the Irish language plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions of landscape, particularly in Gaelic poetry and storytelling.

7. Potential Contradictions in His Argument

• Sheeran criticizes the textualization of landscapes yet relies on literary critique to analyze them, which some see as contradictory (p. 153).
• His call for a more “realistic” engagement with landscape conflicts with the idea that literature, by nature, constructs and reimagines space rather than merely reflecting reality.

Final Thoughts on the Criticism of Landscape and Literature

• While Sheeran provides an important rethinking of Irish literary landscapes, his work has been challenged for being too pragmatic, too dismissive of nationalism and folklore, and not fully engaging with contemporary or postcolonial perspectives.
• A more balanced approach that integrates his cultural materialist critique with an appreciation of symbolic and historical traditions in Irish literature could strengthen his argument.

1. The Law and Literature Debate: Its Development and Significance

• The essay first explores the evolution of the Law and Literature debate, which has been ongoing for over a decade (Ward, 1993, p.44).
• Scholars such as Brook Thomas and Richard Posner suggest that Law and Literature has become increasingly serious, moving beyond initial discussions into interdisciplinary integration (p.44).
• A key distinction in the field is between:
  • “Law in Literature” – examining legal narratives within literary texts.
  • “Law as Literature” – applying literary techniques to interpret legal texts (p.45).

2. Law in Literature: Literary Forms and Legal Understanding

• Metaphor vs. Narrative in Legal Discourse
  • Posner dismisses legal narratives as insignificant, though he accepts the use of metaphor to enhance judicial writing (p.45).
  • Paul Ricœur argues that metaphor and narrative are interlinked and central to storytelling, including legal storytelling (p.46).
  • Richard Rorty emphasizes metaphor’s role in legal texts and advocates for a “continuing conversation” to foster human solidarity (p.46).
• Historical Use of Literary Techniques in Law
  • The use of metaphor, parable, and narrative is not new in legal theory.
  • Aristotle integrated both analytical and metaphorical thinking in his works (Ethics, Rhetoric) (p.47).
  • Various traditions—North American indigenous jurisprudence, Islamic Sharia, and Jewish Talmud—rely on metaphor and storytelling as primary forms of legal texts (p.48).
  • Medieval legal philosophy, including Aquinas and Maimonides, also used literary devices to communicate legal concepts (p.49).
• Contemporary Legal Scholars and Law in Literature
  • James Boyd White: Advocates that legal texts should be read with literary sensitivity, focusing on rhetoric (p.50).
  • Richard Weisberg: Explores law in literature by analyzing modern novels, particularly Kafka and Camus, as commentaries on legal discourse (p.51).
  • Robin West: Uses The Trial to critique Richard Posner’s economic approach to law, arguing that Kafka’s narrative exposes ethical flaws in legal rationalism (p.52).
  • Weisberg and West both argue that literature reveals legal alienation and moral dilemmas, whereas Posner sees their interpretations as exaggerated (p.56).

3. Law as Literature: Literary Techniques in Legal Analysis

• Legal Interpretation and Literary Criticism
  • Legal texts, like literature, require interpretation. Some scholars argue that literary criticism methods (hermeneutics, deconstruction) can be applied to legal texts (p.59).
  • Mark Tushnet and Sanford Levinson highlight legal indeterminacy and claim that legal meaning is always constructed, similar to literary texts (p.60).
  • Stanley Fish argues that interpretation is inherently creative, rejecting the idea of objective legal meaning (p.61).
  • Owen Fiss and Ronald Dworkin counter that legal texts must maintain integrity and should not be subject to unlimited interpretation (p.62).
• Application of Literary Theory to Law
  • White integrates hermeneutics, deconstruction, and semiotics into legal analysis, emphasizing law as a “culture of argument” (p.64).
  • Weisberg sees legal texts as part of a larger discourse of human meaning, aligning with reader-response theory (p.68).
  • Posner, however, insists that law and literature are separate, arguing that legal interpretation must prioritize original intent (p.69).

4. Posner’s Criticism: Law and Literature as Misunderstood

• Posner is the most prominent critic of Law and Literature, arguing:
  • Law and literature serve different purposes; literature is about human experience, while law is about regulation (p.70).
  • Judges and lawyers should focus on legal reasoning, not literary style (p.71).
  • Literary narratives are unrealistic representations of the law, so they should not be used in legal scholarship (p.72).
• Despite his skepticism, Posner concedes that literature might improve legal writing and judicial rhetoric (p.73).

5. The Defence of Law and Literature

• Using Literary Texts to Explore Legal Concepts
  • The second part of the essay defends the relevance of literature to law, arguing that legal narratives, like The Trial and The Outsider, provide insights into legal consciousness and responsibility (p.74).
  • Kafka’s Before the Law parable exemplifies legal alienation, suggesting that law is inaccessible due to individual passivity rather than institutional barriers (p.75).
  • Camus’s The Outsider portrays Mersault’s trial as a metaphor for existential responsibility, reinforcing that legal narratives illustrate deeper human dilemmas (p.76).
• Connection to Critical Legal Studies
  • Roberto Unger, a key Critical Legal Studies (CLS) scholar, argues that law must integrate political, ethical, and psychological elements (p.77).
  • Like Kafka and Camus, CLS scholars view law as a means of alienation but also a potential tool for human empowerment (p.78).
  • Peter Gabel and Duncan Kennedy emphasize law’s role in shaping collective consciousness and argue for participatory legal discourse (p.79).
• Final Justification for Law and Literature
  • Law is not purely legal but is embedded in human experience.
  • Literature captures law’s broader social, political, and psychological impact.
  • If philosophy, history, and psychology are valid legal influences, then narrative fiction should also be recognized as a legitimate means of understanding law (p.80).

Conclusion

• Ward’s essay ultimately supports the integration of literature in legal studies.
• He argues that literary narratives and legal texts share common concerns—power, justice, alienation, and responsibility.
• Despite opposition from formalist scholars like Posner, Law and Literature provides an essential lens for understanding legal discourse and the human condition.

Key References from the Article

• Ward, I. (1993). Law and Literature. Law and Critique, Vol. IV, No.1, 43-80.
• White, J.B. (1982). Law as Language: Reading Law and Reading Literature. Texas Law Review 60, 437.
• Posner, R. (1988). Law and Literature: A Misunderstood Relation. Harvard University Press.
• Ricœur, P. (1978). The Rule of Metaphor. Routledge.
• Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press.
• Weisberg, R. (1984). The Failure of the Word: The Lawyer as Protagonist in Modern Fiction. Yale University Press.
• West, R. (1985). Authority, Autonomy and Choice: The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner. Harvard Law Review 99, 384-428.
• Unger, R. (1984). Passion: An Essay on Personality. Free Press.
• Gabel, P., & Kennedy, D. (1984). Roll Over Beethoven. Stanford Law Review 36, 1-52.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Law And Literature” by Ian Ward

1. The Connection Between Dystopian Literature and Sociology

• The authors argue that dystopian literature is deeply connected to sociology because it explores the interplay between individual experiences and larger historical and social structures.
• Unlike utopian literature, which often presents idealized societies, dystopian literature is more empirically grounded in reality, making it a potent tool for sociological analysis (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• Dystopian literature, through its speculative nature, offers critical insights into how societies function, change, and fail, aligning closely with C. Wright Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination.

2. Mills’ Sociological Imagination and Dystopian Fiction

• Mills defines the sociological imagination as the ability to understand the intersection between personal biography and larger historical and structural forces (Mills, 2000: 6).
• Dystopian literature exemplifies this by showing how historical and social forces shape individuals’ inner lives and personal struggles, and vice versa (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• By illustrating how personal troubles become public issues, dystopian fiction mirrors Mills’ framework, making it a valuable resource for sociological thought.

3. Sociology’s Engagement with Speculative Literature

• Sociology has historically engaged more with utopian rather than dystopian literature, largely due to the influence of theorists like Krishan Kumar and Ruth Levitas (Levitas, 2013; Kumar, 1987).
• Wells, a key figure in early sociological thought, believed sociology should embrace the imaginative as a way of understanding society beyond the limitations of empirical observation (Wells, 1907).
• However, the authors argue that dystopian literature has unique contributions to make, particularly in illustrating the dangers of certain social trajectories.

4. Dystopia vs. Anti-Utopia: Theoretical Distinctions

• Many scholars, including Kumar (1987) and Jameson (2005), conflate dystopia with anti-utopia—works that critique utopian projects that failed or turned oppressive.
• However, Seeger and Davison-Vecchione argue that dystopia is broader, encompassing:
  • Anti-utopias (e.g., Brave New World (Huxley, 1932), Darkness at Noon (Koestler, 1940))
  • Extrapolative dystopias that speculate on the logical consequences of contemporary social trends (e.g., The Circle (Eggers, 2014), The Book of Joan (Yuknavitch, 2017)).
  • Dystopias that explore social pathologies, rather than utopian failures (e.g., The Handmaid’s Tale (Atwood, 1985), Parable of the Sower (Butler, 1993)).

5. Bauman, Mills, and the Role of Literature in Sociology

• Zygmunt Bauman recognized the relevance of literature to sociology, seeing the two as complementary, though sociology has traditionally been hesitant to take literature seriously (Bauman & Mazzeo, 2016).
• While Mills was initially skeptical of literature’s ability to capture social reality effectively, he acknowledged that some literary works (e.g., 1984) provided valuable sociological insights (Mills, 2000).
• The authors argue that dystopian literature goes beyond mere social commentary by immersing readers in social structures, allowing them to experience dystopian conditions through characters’ perspectives.

6. The Role of Perspective in Dystopian and Utopian Literature

• Utopian literature often adopts a “tourist” perspective, with an outsider explaining the ideal society to the reader (e.g., Utopia (More, 1516), Looking Backward (Bellamy, 1888)).
• Dystopian literature, however, is typically narrated from the perspective of a character within the oppressive society, making it more engaging and effective in demonstrating the impact of social structures on individuals (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• This immersive quality enhances its sociological relevance, as it allows readers to witness the lived experiences of those affected by dystopian conditions.

7. Dystopian Fiction as a Sociological Tool

• Dystopian fiction acts as a bridge between phenomenological experience (subjective reality) and historical analysis (objective reality).
• It serves as an imaginative thought experiment that sociologists can use to explore potential social futures.
• The speculative nature of dystopian literature makes it a valuable complement to empirical sociology, as it can anticipate social problems before they fully emerge.

8. Practical Applications of Dystopian Fiction in Sociology

• The authors highlight the pedagogical value of dystopian fiction, which has been used in sociology classrooms to help students think critically about social structures and institutions.
• However, they argue that dystopian literature should be treated as a legitimate form of sociological analysis in its own right, rather than just a teaching tool.
• They advocate for greater engagement with dystopian fiction in sociological research, particularly in analyzing contemporary issues such as surveillance, authoritarianism, climate change, and social inequality.

Key Takeaways

1. Dystopian fiction aligns with the sociological imagination by illustrating how individual lives are shaped by historical and structural forces.
2. It has been underutilized in sociology, which has traditionally focused more on utopian literature.
3. Dystopia is broader than anti-utopia, encompassing multiple forms, including extrapolative and social pathology-focused dystopias.
4. Bauman and Mills both recognized literature’s value to sociology, but its full potential has not been realized within the discipline.
5. Dystopian literature is an effective sociological tool, providing immersive, thought-provoking critiques of contemporary and future social issues.
6. Sociologists should actively engage with dystopian fiction, both as a research tool and a means of public engagement.Bottom of Form

1. Expansion of the Sociological Imagination in Literary Studies

• The authors extend C. Wright Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination beyond traditional sociology, arguing that dystopian fiction functions as a form of sociological analysis (Mills, 2000).
• They highlight that dystopian literature helps readers understand the interplay between biography and history, making social structures visible through narrative (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• This contribution aligns with New Historicism, which emphasizes the relationship between literary texts and historical contexts (Greenblatt, 1980s).

Reference:
Seeger & Davison-Vecchione (2019) argue that dystopian literature provides “a potent exercise of what C. Wright Mills famously termed ‘the sociological imagination'” by illustrating how “historically conditioned social forces shape the inner life and personal experience of the individual.”

2. Reconceptualization of Dystopia in Utopian Studies

• The article challenges the traditional binary opposition of utopia and dystopia, showing that dystopia is not simply “anti-utopia” but has its own theoretical framework (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• It builds on and critiques Krishan Kumar’s (1987) and Fredric Jameson’s (2005) notions of dystopia as merely an inversion of utopia, instead advocating for a broader classification of dystopian subgenres.
• This contribution aligns with Critical Utopian Studies, which seeks to redefine the relationship between utopian and dystopian thought (Levitas, 2013).

Reference:
The authors write that dystopian fiction “ought to be seen as situated somewhere between the subjective and objective poles, allowing it to illustrate how personal experience and social structure enter into and mutually influence one another with a phenomenological richness arguably unmatched by empirical analysis.”

3. Dystopian Literature as a Methodological Tool in Literary Criticism

• The article argues that dystopian fiction serves as a sociological thought experiment, extrapolating from real-world social trends to speculate on possible futures (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• This aligns dystopian literature with Structuralist and Post-Structuralist approaches, particularly those that examine how narrative structures reveal ideological assumptions (Barthes, 1967; Foucault, 1970).
• The authors suggest that dystopian narratives engage in a form of ideological critique, uncovering power structures, making their work relevant to Marxist literary criticism (Eagleton, 1976).

Reference:
The article states, “By identifying the possible consequences of observable social trends rooted in collective human action, dystopian fiction implies that we may be able to intervene to prevent such outcomes.”

4. Linking Literary Narratives to the Public Sphere

• The authors emphasize the pedagogical value of dystopian fiction, proposing that it serves as an entry point for understanding real-world power structures, neoliberalism, surveillance, and social collapse (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• This reinforces Habermas’ theory of the public sphere, where literature plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse (Habermas, 1962).
• The argument also aligns with Cultural Studies approaches that view literature as an active participant in societal critique (Hall, 1970s).

Reference:
Seeger & Davison-Vecchione note that dystopian fiction “enables readers to grasp the ways in which private troubles are connected to public issues, which is fundamental to sociological thinking.”

5. Recognition of New Dystopian Forms Beyond Classic Anti-Utopia

• The article broadens the categorization of dystopian literature, identifying new subgenres:
  • Extrapolative dystopias (e.g., The Circle by Eggers, The Book of Joan by Yuknavitch)
  • Social pathology dystopias (e.g., The Handmaid’s Tale by Atwood, Parable of the Sower by Butler)
  • Corporate dystopias (e.g., Neuromancer by Gibson)
• This contributes to Genre Theory, particularly discussions on how speculative fiction reflects contemporary anxieties (Suvin, 1979; Jameson, 2005).

Reference:
The authors state, “Dystopias of this sort, which we may call ‘extrapolative’ dystopias, work by identifying something already taking place in society and then employing the resources of imaginative literature to extrapolate to some conceivable, though not inevitable, future state of affairs.”

6. Bridging Literary Phenomenology and Social Experience

• The article highlights how dystopian fiction offers an immersive phenomenological experience, allowing readers to engage with oppressive social structures from the inside (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• This resonates with Phenomenological Literary Criticism, which explores how literature mediates human experience (Heidegger, 1927; Merleau-Ponty, 1945).
• It also complements Reader-Response Theory, as it suggests dystopian fiction’s impact depends on the reader’s ability to recognize dystopian themes in real life (Iser, 1978).

Reference:
“Dystopian fiction is situated neither at the level of law-bound scientific prediction nor at the level of wholly idiosyncratic private experience, but somewhere between the two.”

7. Reframing Dystopian Fiction as Public Sociology

• The authors argue that dystopian fiction contributes to public sociology, helping readers recognize and analyze contemporary social problems (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione, 2019).
• This idea aligns with Bauman’s theory of liquid modernity, which suggests that contemporary society lacks stability, much like many dystopian worlds (Bauman, 2000).
• It also resonates with Critical Theory, which sees literature as a means of raising awareness about oppression and social injustice (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1944).

Reference:
Seeger & Davison-Vecchione claim, “Dystopian fiction helps us envisage the relationship between biography and history, connecting personal struggles to larger social forces.”

Conclusion: Key Theoretical Contributions

1. Expands the sociological imagination into literary studies, aligning dystopian fiction with New Historicism.
2. Challenges the utopia/anti-utopia dichotomy, contributing to Utopian Studies and Genre Theory.
3. Positions dystopian literature as a methodological tool, linking it to Marxist and Structuralist criticism.
4. Connects dystopian narratives to public discourse, reinforcing Cultural Studies and Habermas’ public sphere theory.
5. Identifies new dystopian subgenres, expanding Genre Theory and Science Fiction Studies.
6. Bridges phenomenology and literary experience, engaging with Phenomenological and Reader-Response Theories.
7. Reframes dystopian fiction as public sociology, supporting Critical Theory and Bauman’s modernity analysis.

1. Overemphasis on Sociological Interpretation at the Expense of Literary Analysis

• The article primarily frames dystopian fiction as a sociological tool, potentially reducing its literary and aesthetic significance.
• By focusing on how dystopian literature aligns with C. Wright Mills’ sociological imagination, it downplays the role of literary techniques, narrative structures, and genre conventions in shaping meaning.
• Scholars in literary studies might argue that dystopian fiction is not just about reflecting social structures but also about stylistic and formal innovations that cannot be fully captured through a sociological lens.

Counterpoint: The authors acknowledge literary techniques but prioritize the sociological relevance of dystopian narratives.

2. Limited Engagement with Other Critical Theories

• The article largely focuses on sociological theory, particularly Mills, Bauman, and Levitas, but lacks substantial engagement with other critical literary and philosophical traditions.
• Postmodernist and Poststructuralist perspectives (Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard) on dystopian narratives are notably absent.
• Feminist, Postcolonial, and Ecocritical readings of dystopian literature, which have gained prominence in literary studies, are underexplored.

Counterpoint: The article’s intent is to integrate dystopian literature into sociology, rather than provide a comprehensive literary theoretical analysis.

3. Overgeneralization of Dystopian Fiction

• The argument that dystopian literature is more empirically grounded than utopian fiction is an oversimplification.
• Some dystopian works are highly allegorical or symbolic, rather than directly extrapolative from real-world social trends (e.g., Kafka’s The Trial).
• The distinction between dystopia, anti-utopia, and extrapolative dystopia might be too rigid, as many works blend multiple dystopian elements.

Counterpoint: The authors do acknowledge some overlap, but their classification could be more flexible.

4. Neglect of the Psychological and Emotional Impact of Dystopian Fiction

• The article focuses on dystopian literature’s role in social critique but does not sufficiently explore its psychological and emotional impact on readers.
• Reader-Response Theory and affective criticism suggest that dystopian fiction not only critiques society but also elicits strong emotional reactions, which shape its interpretive value.
• The emotional resonance of dystopian works, particularly fear, anxiety, and catharsis, is underexamined.

Counterpoint: While the authors focus on social structures, an analysis of dystopia’s affective dimensions could strengthen their argument.

5. Assumption That Dystopian Fiction is Always a “Serious” Sociological Exercise

• The article assumes that all dystopian fiction serves as a sociological thought experiment, but many dystopian works include entertainment, satire, and aesthetic complexity beyond sociological critique.
• Works like J.G. Ballard’s High-Rise or Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? contain dystopian elements but are also deeply philosophical, psychological, and experimental.
• The claim that dystopian fiction is more useful for sociology than utopian fiction might be too narrow, ignoring utopian literature’s capacity for critique through contrast.

Counterpoint: The authors do acknowledge variations in dystopian fiction but might benefit from a more nuanced approach to genre diversity.

6. Potentially Idealized View of the Sociological Imagination

• The authors assume that dystopian literature inherently fosters critical sociological thinking, but this depends on the reader’s interpretation.
• Some dystopian works, particularly those in popular culture (e.g., The Hunger Games, Black Mirror), might be read passively as entertainment rather than sociological critique.
• The effectiveness of dystopian fiction in cultivating sociological awareness varies depending on context, audience, and critical engagement.

Counterpoint: The article could benefit from discussing how dystopian literature is received and interpreted in different cultural and educational settings.

7. Underrepresentation of Non-Western Dystopian Literature

• The article primarily discusses Western dystopian fiction (Orwell, Huxley, Atwood, Eggers, Butler) but does not sufficiently engage with non-Western dystopian traditions.
• Many dystopian works from Latin America, Africa, and East Asia offer distinct perspectives on authoritarianism, capitalism, and technology (e.g., **Liu Cixin’s The Three-Body Problem, Yoko Ogawa’s The Memory Police).
• The argument might be seen as Eurocentric, assuming that dystopian literature’s primary concerns are those of Western modernity.

Counterpoint: While the article focuses on canonical works, incorporating non-Western perspectives would broaden its applicability.

8. Insufficient Discussion on the Relationship Between Dystopian Fiction and Political Action

• The authors argue that dystopian literature highlights social issues but do not fully explore whether and how dystopian narratives influence real-world political change.
• Can dystopian fiction inspire activism, resistance, or policy change? The article does not fully answer this.
• Works like The Handmaid’s Tale have been used as feminist protest symbols, but other dystopian narratives (e.g., The Hunger Games) have been co-opted into commercialized franchises.

Counterpoint: Future research could examine the practical impact of dystopian literature beyond its academic value.

Conclusion: Areas for Further Development

While Seeger & Davison-Vecchione provide a compelling argument for integrating dystopian literature into sociological thought, their analysis could be enriched by:

1. A stronger engagement with literary theory, particularly Poststructuralism, Feminism, and Postcolonial Studies.
2. More flexibility in defining dystopian subgenres, acknowledging hybrid forms.
3. An exploration of the psychological and affective power of dystopian narratives.
4. Consideration of non-Western dystopian literature, addressing global perspectives.
5. An analysis of reader reception and political influence, discussing whether dystopian fiction leads to real-world action.

• The Boom of World Literature:
• Since the turn of the millennium, the concept of “World Literature” has experienced a resurgence, closely tied to globalization (Birus, 2018, p. 239). This revival is evident in the works of scholars like Pascale Casanova, Franco Moretti, and David Damrosch, who have redefined the field (Birus, 2018, p. 240).
• Emily Apter critiques the concept, arguing that World Literature often promotes liberal inclusiveness at the expense of political critique (Birus, 2018, p. 240).
• Goethe and the Origins of Weltliteratur:
• Goethe’s idea of Weltliteratur emerged in 1827, coinciding with the rise of comparative literature (Littérature comparée) in France (Birus, 2018, p. 242). Goethe saw Weltliteratur as a response to increased global communication and trade, emphasizing the exchange of ideas between nations (Birus, 2018, p. 243).
• Goethe did not view Weltliteratur as replacing national literatures but as a complementary development that would enrich them (Birus, 2018, p. 243).
• World Literature and Globalization:
• The Co-emergence of Weltliteratur and Comparative Literature:
• The simultaneous emergence of Weltliteratur and Littérature comparée in 1827 reflects the interplay between literary studies and the natural sciences, particularly comparative anatomy (Birus, 2018, p. 245). Both fields were influenced by the political and social upheavals of the post-Napoleonic era (Birus, 2018, p. 246).
• Goethe linked the rise of Weltliteratur to the globalization of trade and communication in the 19th century (Birus, 2018, p. 242). Franco Moretti distinguishes between two phases of Weltliteratur: pre-18th century, characterized by local diversity, and post-18th century, marked by global integration and homogenization (Birus, 2018, p. 244).
• National Literatures and World Literature:
• Goethe’s proclamation of the “epoch of world literature” did not lead to the decline of national literatures. Instead, national literatures flourished, contributing to the formation of national identities (Birus, 2018, p. 249). Erich Auerbach noted that Weltliteratur presupposes the diversity of cultures rather than their homogenization (Birus, 2018, p. 250).
• The Role of Translation:
• Translation plays a crucial role in the development of World Literature, enabling the exchange of ideas across linguistic and cultural boundaries (Birus, 2018, p. 257). Goethe viewed translators as mediators who facilitate intellectual trade between nations (Birus, 2018, p. 258).
• The Prehistory of World Literature:
• Alexander Beecroft’s typology of literary systems (epichoric, panchoric, cosmopolitan, vernacular, national, and global) provides a framework for understanding the evolution of World Literature (Birus, 2018, p. 254). Beecroft argues that the national-literature model is inadequate in the age of globalization, as literary circulation transcends national borders (Birus, 2018, p. 256).
• Future of World Literature:
• Beecroft envisions two possible futures for World Literature: one dominated by global English and another characterized by the proliferation of regional literary languages and increased translation (Birus, 2018, p. 256). Auerbach warned of the dangers of a standardized global culture, which would undermine the diversity essential to Weltliteratur (Birus, 2018, p. 256).

Key References

• Birus, H. (2018). Debating world literature: A retrospect. Journal of World Literature, 3(2), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1163/24056480-00303003
• Apter, E. (2013). Against world literature: On the politics of untranslatability. Verso.
• Casanova, P. (2004). The world republic of letters (M. B. DeBevoise, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
• Damrosch, D. (2003). What is world literature? Princeton University Press.
• Moretti, F. (2000). Conjectures on world literature. New Left Review, 1, 54–68.
• Goethe, J. W. (1827). Conversations with Eckermann.

1. Recontextualization of Goethe’s Weltliteratur

• Birus revisits Goethe’s concept of Weltliteratur (1827), emphasizing its historical and theoretical relevance in the context of globalization (Birus, 2018, p. 239). He argues that Goethe’s vision was not about replacing national literatures but fostering intellectual exchange between cultures (Birus, 2018, p. 243).
• Contribution: Provides a nuanced understanding of Goethe’s idea, challenging the misconception that Weltliteratur seeks to homogenize literary traditions.

2. Critique of Contemporary World Literature Debates

• Birus critiques the contemporary revival of World Literature, particularly the works of scholars like Pascale Casanova, Franco Moretti, and David Damrosch, while also addressing Emily Apter’s skepticism about the depoliticization of World Literature (Birus, 2018, p. 240).
• Contribution: Highlights the tension between liberal inclusiveness and political critique in World Literature studies, offering a balanced perspective on its limitations and potentials.

3. Integration of Globalization and Literary Studies

• The article links the rise of World Literature to the globalization of trade, communication, and cultural exchange in the 19th century, as noted by Goethe (Birus, 2018, p. 242). Birus also discusses how contemporary globalization has intensified the circulation of literary works across borders (Birus, 2018, p. 244).
• Contribution: Bridges the gap between literary theory and globalization studies, showing how economic and cultural globalization shape literary production and reception.

4. Co-emergence of Weltliteratur and Comparative Literature

• Birus highlights the simultaneous emergence of Weltliteratur and Littérature comparée in 1827, tracing their shared roots in the natural sciences (e.g., comparative anatomy) and the socio-political changes of the post-Napoleonic era (Birus, 2018, p. 245).
• Contribution: Demonstrates the interdisciplinary origins of Comparative Literature, emphasizing its historical connection to World Literature.

5. Typology of Literary Systems (Alexander Beecroft)

• Birus discusses Beecroft’s typology of literary systems (epichoric, panchoric, cosmopolitan, vernacular, national, and global) as a framework for understanding the evolution of World Literature (Birus, 2018, p. 254).
• Contribution: Introduces Beecroft’s model as a tool for analyzing the historical and cultural dynamics of literary production and circulation.

6. Role of Translation in World Literature

• Birus underscores the importance of translation in facilitating the exchange of literary works across linguistic and cultural boundaries, citing Goethe’s view of translators as mediators of intellectual trade (Birus, 2018, p. 257).
• Contribution: Reinforces the centrality of translation in World Literature studies, challenging the notion that untranslatability limits cross-cultural literary exchange.

7. Critique of National Literature vs. World Literature Dichotomy

• Birus challenges the binary opposition between national literatures and World Literature, arguing that the two are interdependent. He cites Erich Auerbach’s view that Weltliteratur thrives on cultural diversity rather than homogenization (Birus, 2018, p. 250).
• Contribution: Offers a more inclusive and dynamic model of literary studies that accommodates both local and global perspectives.

8. Historical Perspective on Literary Evolution

• The article provides a historical overview of literary evolution, from pre-modern epichoric and panchoric literatures to modern national and global literatures, drawing on Beecroft’s typology (Birus, 2018, p. 254).
• Contribution: Situates World Literature within a broader historical framework, highlighting its continuity with earlier forms of literary exchange.

9. Critique of Eurocentrism in World Literature

• Birus critiques the Eurocentric bias in traditional World Literature studies, noting how Goethe’s concept was initially limited to Western or European literature (Birus, 2018, p. 247). He advocates for a more inclusive approach that incorporates non-Western literary traditions.
• Contribution: Calls for a decolonized and globally inclusive approach to World Literature, aligning with postcolonial critiques of Eurocentrism.

10. Future of World Literature

• Birus explores two possible futures for World Literature: one dominated by global English and another characterized by the proliferation of regional literary languages and increased translation (Birus, 2018, p. 256). He also references Auerbach’s warning about the dangers of cultural standardization (Birus, 2018, p. 256).
• Contribution: Offers a forward-looking perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing World Literature in an increasingly globalized world.

1. Eurocentrism and Canonical Bias

• Critics like Emily Apter argue that Birus’ approach to world literature remains deeply Eurocentric, emphasizing Western literary traditions over non-Western narratives​.
• The discussion tends to privilege European concepts such as Goethe’s Weltliteratur, while marginalizing non-European literary traditions and indigenous storytelling frameworks.

2. Lack of Political Engagement

• Some scholars believe that Debating World Literature focuses too much on literary forms and structures while avoiding the political implications of globalization on literature​.
• Critics argue that the book underestimates the role of colonialism and postcolonial power dynamics in shaping world literature.

3. Overemphasis on Translation as a Mediator

• While Birus highlights the significance of translation, critics like Apter challenge this emphasis, arguing that translation often distorts meaning and reinforces linguistic hierarchies​.
• The book does not fully address the issue of untranslatability, where cultural and linguistic contexts prevent a direct transfer of meaning.

4. Idealization of World Literature as a Unified Field

• Critics argue that Birus presents an overly optimistic view of world literature as an inclusive space, without sufficiently acknowledging the dominance of certain literary markets (e.g., Anglo-American publishing)​.
• The assumption that world literature is a neutral or democratic exchange ignores structural inequalities in literary production and dissemination.

5. Neglect of Digital and Popular Literature

• The book does not sufficiently engage with the impact of digital media, social media storytelling, and popular literature, which increasingly shape global literary consumption​.
• The focus remains on print literature, limiting its relevance to contemporary discussions on global literary production.

1. The Paradox of the Modern Age

• Despite scientific and social advancements, modern society continues to rely on scapegoating, highlighting deep-rooted human instincts.
• De Verteuil states that “the age of maximum enlightenment” is also “the age of maximum peril” as society still identifies “a human enemy” (p. 209).

2. The Scapegoat as a Primordial Archetype

• The scapegoat functions as a collective psychological construct rooted in the unconscious, as described in Jungian theory.
• Jung defines the primordial image as “an inherited organisation of psychic energy,” which gives “apprehension of the given situation” and provides meaning beyond instinct (p. 210).

3. Biblical and Historical Origins of the Scapegoat

• The concept of the scapegoat appears in the Old Testament, particularly in the ritual described in Leviticus 16:5-22, where a goat symbolically carries the sins of the people into the desert.
• The scapegoat ritual predates other sacrificial customs and may indicate an earlier form of “sacrificial behavior” (p. 209).

4. The Role of Sacrifice in Society

• Human societies originally used human sacrifice but later transitioned to animal substitutes, as seen in the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac (p. 210).
• The idea that “man is still a wolf to man” suggests that the scapegoat serves as a survival mechanism, channeling collective aggression toward an external victim rather than internal destruction (p. 211).

5. The Scapegoat and the Angry God

• The image of an “angry god” demanding sacrifice is a projection of early human survival instincts, where divine wrath was a reflection of mankind’s own savagery (p. 212).
• The biblical sacrifice of two goats—one to Yahweh and one to Azazel—illustrates the tension between divine mercy and wrath, showing the incomplete transition from primitive deities to a monotheistic God (p. 213).

6. The Scapegoat in Criminal Justice

• Societies have historically used criminals as scapegoats to maintain social order.
• In ancient Israel, blasphemers were executed in a manner resembling the scapegoat ritual: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp… let the whole community stone him” (Leviticus 24:14-16, p. 214).
• In 19th-century England, even children were publicly hanged for petty crimes, reinforcing society’s dependence on scapegoats (p. 215).

7. Political and Racial Scapegoating

• Scapegoating extends beyond criminal justice to racial and political persecution.
• The Holocaust and apartheid South Africa are cited as modern manifestations of this phenomenon (p. 216).
• De Verteuil warns against condemning past societies while failing to recognize that scapegoating persists today (p. 217).

8. The Scapegoat in Judaeo-Christian History

• Christianity transformed the scapegoat into a figure of redemption, with Christ as the ultimate scapegoat.
• However, medieval Christianity reverted to scapegoating, condemning “the souls of the damned” and fostering an obsession with sin and damnation (p. 219).
• The Middle Ages saw the re-emergence of Satan as a scapegoat, particularly in witch hunts and the persecution of heretics (p. 220).

9. The Scapegoat in Mental Illness

• Psychological scapegoating occurs in individuals diagnosed with mental illness, who are often alienated rather than helped.
• The mentally ill, like traditional scapegoats, “invite rejection” because they unconsciously expose the hidden tensions of society (p. 221).
• Families may reinforce scapegoating dynamics, as seen in a mother’s statement: “If my daughter and I have to be the sufferers, let it be so” (p. 222).

10. The Need to Transcend the Scapegoat Archetype

• De Verteuil argues that modern societies must move beyond the need for scapegoats, as this mechanism is an outdated and dangerous form of social cohesion.
• The persistence of scapegoating in a “great society” is a sign of moral and psychological regression (p. 223).
• He concludes that “the scapegoat is an anachronism that the human race has outgrown” and that recognizing this is vital for societal progress (p. 224).

1. Archetypal Criticism (Carl Jung)

• De Verteuil’s concept of the scapegoat as a primordial image aligns with Jungian archetypal criticism, which explores recurring symbols and narratives in literature.
• “The phenomenon of the scapegoat, or rather of the primordial image in the human unconscious that we have identified as the ‘scapegoat archetype'” (p. 209).
• The scapegoat functions as a collective archetype that influences literature and mythology, appearing in various forms, such as Christ in Christianity or Oedipus in Greek tragedy.

2. Mythological Criticism (Northrop Frye)

• The study supports Frye’s theory of mythic structures, particularly in how literature repeatedly draws from the scapegoat motif.
• “Biblical scholars agree that the scapegoat ritual has a more archaic character than the other sacrificial rites associated with it” (p. 209).
• Mythic structures of sacrificial figures—such as in King Lear and The Crucible—demonstrate how literature continually reinterprets the scapegoat narrative.

3. Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism (Freud & Lacan)

• The text applies psychoanalytic theory to literature, arguing that the scapegoat archetype satisfies an unconscious need for externalizing guilt.
• “The primordial image is to be found in the deepest layers of the human unconscious, the ‘collective’ as distinct from the ‘personal’ unconscious” (p. 215).
• Literature often reveals societal projections of guilt and fear onto scapegoat figures, such as Frankenstein’s creature or Kafka’s The Trial.

4. Structuralism (Claude Lévi-Strauss)

• De Verteuil’s work aligns with structuralist analysis by showing how the scapegoat archetype operates as a binary opposition in myth and literature (good vs. evil, divine vs. cursed).
• “Two goats, one, chosen by lot, is blessed, the other cursed; one is purified, ‘made holy,’ and calls forth the image of a merciful God, the other is abandoned, unforgiven” (p. 213).
• This duality can be seen in literature, such as in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or Milton’s Paradise Lost.

5. Postcolonial Theory (Edward Said, Frantz Fanon)

• The text contributes to postcolonial criticism by demonstrating how scapegoating is used to justify racial and political oppression.
• “It is in the form of racial oppression and political persecution that scapegoating is being carried out today, and on a scale that even the most primitive societies of antiquity might have considered excessive” (p. 216).
• Works like Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart and Toni Morrison’s Beloved depict how colonial societies create scapegoats to maintain power structures.

6. New Historicism (Stephen Greenblatt)

• De Verteuil emphasizes how historical contexts shape the use of scapegoats in literature, resonating with New Historicist methods.
• “The ‘Age of Darkness’ seems reassuringly far behind us—or is it? The twentieth century… has seen cycles that are uncomfortably close to that far-off Age of ‘Darkness'” (p. 220).
• Literature like Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Orwell’s 1984 reflects historical moments of scapegoating (McCarthyism, totalitarianism).

7. Feminist Literary Criticism (Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler)

• The text supports feminist analysis by acknowledging how women have been historically scapegoated in literature and society.
• “The destructive tensions in such a society would create such a need for scapegoats that we are hardly surprised to find the old archetypal images emerging once more: Satan, the Satyr, the Scapegoat” (p. 220).
• This applies to works like The Scarlet Letter (Hester Prynne as a scapegoat) and The Handmaid’s Tale (women bearing collective guilt for societal downfall).

8. Trauma and Memory Studies (Cathy Caruth, Marianne Hirsch)

• The study aligns with trauma theory, exploring how scapegoats carry the burden of collective historical trauma.
• “The psychotic scapegoat, especially if introverted, tends rather to suffer the same experience inwardly through nightmarish perceptions, disturbed emotions, and disordered thinking” (p. 221).
• Literature like Beloved or Slaughterhouse-Five explores how scapegoating affects individual and collective memory.

9. Political Literary Theory (Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben)

• The text aligns with biopolitical and Foucauldian theories, showing how power structures create scapegoats to control populations.
• “Imagine one further stage of regression, and the law of the jungle is back: kill or be killed, devour or be devoured” (p. 220).
• Agamben’s Homo Sacer and Orwell’s 1984 show how political scapegoating dehumanizes individuals to justify persecution.

10. Existentialism and Absurdism (Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus)

• The article contributes to existentialist and absurdist readings by emphasizing how scapegoats are alienated figures confronting an irrational society.
• “The scapegoating of the mentally ill is thus not so much a matter of condemnation as one of alienation; society accepts, not that the patient is ‘bad,’ but that he is just ‘not one of us'” (p. 222).
• This aligns with works like Camus’ The Stranger or Kafka’s The Trial, where the protagonist becomes an outcast.

1. Over-Reliance on Jungian Analytical Psychology

• De Verteuil heavily depends on Jungian archetypes, which some critics argue are too universalist and ignore historical and cultural specificity.
• Critics of Jungian theory argue that archetypes are constructed rather than innate, making the scapegoat archetype a culturally contingent phenomenon rather than a universal truth.

2. Limited Engagement with Socio-Political Power Structures

• While De Verteuil discusses scapegoating in politics and history, he does not fully engage with Marxist, Foucauldian, or postcolonial theories that analyze scapegoating as a function of institutional power.
• His analysis focuses more on psychological necessity rather than economic, political, or ideological manipulation of scapegoating by elites.

3. Essentialist View of Human Nature

• The claim that the scapegoat mechanism is an inherent human instinct assumes a fixed human nature, which contradicts poststructuralist and constructivist perspectives.
• Critics might argue that scapegoating is socially conditioned rather than biologically or psychologically predetermined.

4. Lack of Feminist and Intersectional Analysis

• De Verteuil does not specifically address how gender, race, and class shape scapegoating differently, making his framework less applicable to intersectional critiques.
• Feminist critics might argue that scapegoating in literature and history often targets women and marginalized identities differently, a nuance missing from his work.

5. Oversimplification of Religious Evolution

• The text implies a linear progression from primitive sacrifice to enlightened morality, suggesting that society is “outgrowing” scapegoating.
• Religious historians might criticize this as too simplistic, failing to account for the complexity and persistence of sacrificial motifs in modern religious and secular institutions.

6. Weak Empirical Support

• The analysis is largely theoretical and interpretative, with minimal empirical or anthropological evidence to support the claim that societies with greater scapegoating tendencies are necessarily “sicker.”
• Critics might argue that De Verteuil’s conclusions require more concrete sociological or historical data rather than relying on literary and mythological examples.

7. Limited Exploration of Alternative Mechanisms for Social Cohesion

• The text suggests that scapegoating is a primary means of social cohesion, but it does not explore alternative conflict-resolution strategies in historical or modern societies.
• Sociologists might argue that some societies have developed non-scapegoating mechanisms for collective harmony that De Verteuil fails to consider.

8. Lack of Literary Textual Analysis

• Despite its relevance to literary theory, the work does not deeply analyze specific literary texts, making it less effective for literary scholars seeking close readings.
• His theoretical framework is useful but lacks applied literary criticism beyond broad historical and religious references.

9. Ambiguity in the “End of the Scapegoat Era” Claim

• The idea that modern society should move beyond scapegoating is idealistic and ignores how contemporary politics, media, and law continue to function through scapegoating mechanisms.
• Postmodern critics might argue that scapegoating has evolved rather than disappeared, now operating through digital media, corporate blame culture, and scapegoating of social groups in new forms.

2. The Ritual in Greek Society

• The Greek scapegoat (pharmakos) was often a marginalized person (criminal, slave, poor, or physically deformed) chosen for expulsion or sacrifice.
• Evidence comes from Hipponax (6th-century BC), Tzetzes, and Aristophanes, detailing ritualistic abuse and expulsion (p. 300-301).
• In some cases, the scapegoat was burned and its ashes cast into the sea (Tzetzes, p. 301).
• The Thargelia festival (for Apollo) in Athens featured the ritual annually (p. 301-302).

“In Abdera, a poor man was feasted once, led around the walls of the city and finally chased over the borders with stones” (p. 302).
“The Athenian pharmakoi are described as ‘of low origin and useless'” (p. 303).

3. The Role of the Scapegoat

• The scapegoat was a marginal figure—criminals, slaves, foreigners, young men and women, and sometimes even kings (p. 303-305).
• The ritual symbolized community purification by transferring collective guilt onto the scapegoat (p. 304).
• Sometimes, important figures (like the daughters of Erechtheus or King Kodros) sacrificed themselves for the city’s welfare (p. 305).

“The myth shows, however, that high and low are interchangeable: the Athenian king Kodros who saved the Athenian community by his death was killed dressed up as a woodworker” (p. 304).

4. Voluntariness of the Sacrifice

• Mythological and some historical cases depict the scapegoat as voluntarily sacrificing themselves for the good of society (p. 307-308).
• However, some sources suggest they were tricked or bribed into the role (p. 307).
• Christian texts compare Jesus to Greek scapegoats (Origen, p. 307).

“The mythical tales, as so often, give a valuable insight into Greek sacrificial ideology” (p. 307).

5. The Use of Symbolic Plants

• The pharmakos was beaten with squills, twigs of wild fig, and agnus castus, all considered “wild” plants (p. 308-310).
• The use of infertile plants (squill, wild fig, and lygos) reinforced the scapegoat’s marginality (p. 309-311).

“The Greeks made the same connection as ancient Rome between wild trees and persons who had to be removed from the community” (p. 309).

6. Expulsion from the City

• The scapegoat was led out of the city in a formal procession, starting from the prytaneion (town hall) (p. 313-314).
• Special gates were used for executions and purifications (Plutarch, p. 314).
• Music played during the procession was disharmonious, creating a chaotic atmosphere (p. 314).

“After chasing the scapegoats over the border people probably returned without looking back, as was the rule in the case of purificatory offerings” (p. 315).

7. Was the Scapegoat Killed?

• Scholars debate whether the scapegoat was killed or merely expelled.
• Mythical versions suggest death, but historical sources indicate expulsion (p. 316-317).
• Examples from Abdera, Athens, Massilia, and Leukas show that the scapegoat was typically stoned but allowed to escape (p. 317).

“When we discount the death of the scapegoats in the myths, we are left with two cases. In Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana (4.10), it is described how during a plague in Ephesus, Apollonius pointed to a squalid beggar and ordered him to be killed” (p. 316-317).

8. Connection to the Thargelia Festival

• The scapegoat ritual occurred on the first day of the Thargelia festival (p. 318).
• The second day involved offerings, songs, and feasting, marking a seasonal renewal (p. 319).
• Similar purificatory rituals occurred in Tibet and Rome before New Year celebrations (p. 319-320).

“No new beginning before a complete katharsis of the old situation” (p. 320).

Conclusion

• The Greek scapegoat ritual was a structured purification process aimed at transferring community guilt onto a marginalized individual (p. 320).
• Though myth and history diverge, the fundamental idea remains: society protects itself by eliminating an outsider (p. 320).
• Compared to other cultures, the Greek practice was more violent, possibly indicating a deeper societal fear of pollution and disorder (p. 320).

1. Oedipus Rex (Sophocles)

• Scapegoating as Purification: Oedipus is exiled to rid Thebes of its pollution, mirroring the pharmakos ritual where a marginalized figure is expelled to restore order.

“Pollution (miasma) must be ritually removed to restore balance, as these rituals were performed during extraordinary circumstances such as plague, famine, and drought.” (p. 302)

• King as the Ultimate Scapegoat: Oedipus, once at the pinnacle of power, is reduced to a liminal figure (a trait seen in both scapegoats and sacrificial kings).

“The king distinguished himself from the rest of the population in that he alone could claim contact with the divine… the lonely marginal at the top.” (p. 304)

• Voluntary Exile Reflects Mythic Patterns: Oedipus’ self-imposed exile aligns with myths of voluntary sacrifice, reinforcing Greek belief in communal salvation through individual suffering.

“In our mythical examples, the victims always sacrifice themselves voluntarily.” (p. 307)

2. The Lottery (Shirley Jackson)

• Collective Violence as Catharsis: The town’s ritualized stoning of a chosen victim resembles the pharmakos ceremony, where communities purge sin by transferring it onto a single person.

“The involvement of all persons in the expulsion of one member of the group helps reconstitute that group.” (p. 315)

• Scapegoating as a Social Necessity: The ritual is unquestioned, much like the scapegoat festivals in Athens and Abdera, showing how societies justify ritual violence as tradition.

“The Thargelia festival included annual scapegoat expulsions, reinforcing collective unity through ritualized exclusion.” (p. 319)

• The Victim is Chosen from Within: Unlike myths where outsiders serve as scapegoats, Jackson’s story critiques how even the most integrated members can become targets.

“Strangers naturally do not belong to the community, but even young men and women were considered marginal figures.” (p. 304)

3. The Crucible (Arthur Miller)

• Witch Trials as Scapegoat Rituals: Salem’s accused witches function as pharmakoi, expelled to purge the community of imagined sins.

“Where earlier generations saw fertility rituals in the scapegoat complex, Burkert rightly pointed out that these rituals were about sacrificing one to save the many.” (p. 300)

• Public Participation in Persecution: Miller critiques mob mentality by showing how communal fear fuels false accusations, paralleling scapegoat expulsions in ancient Greece.

“It was typical of stoning that everybody present took part in it, ensuring collective involvement in expulsion.” (p. 315)

• The “Other” as a Necessary Sacrifice: Women, particularly outspoken or independent ones, are cast as dangerous liminal figures—echoing the gendered aspect of scapegoat myths.

“Polykrite, a girl who was sacrificed, was honored during the Thargelia, reinforcing the gendered nature of purification rituals.” (p. 303)

4. Lord of the Flies (William Golding)

• The Death of Simon as a Scapegoat Event: Simon is ritualistically killed as an “outsider” who threatens the group’s fragile order. His murder reflects the pharmakos tradition.

“The word pharmakos soon became a term of abuse, reflecting its transformation into a cultural signifier of impurity.” (p. 304)

• Scapegoating and Social Collapse: Golding’s novel explores how communities turn on weaker members when faced with chaos, much like Greek societies during times of famine or plague.

“Scapegoat rituals were performed during extraordinary circumstances such as plague, famine, and drought.” (p. 302)

• Purification through Bloodshed: The boys’ descent into savagery is solidified by ritualized violence, reflecting how Greek scapegoat expulsions functioned as symbolic purification.

“The expulsion of a citizen from the polis was a serious matter, performed through ritualized processions and symbolic acts.” (p. 314)

1. The Central Issue: Balancing Freedom and Restraint

• Murray argues that the core issue of censorship revolves around striking a balance between social freedom and necessary constraints.
• He states, “In society, constraint must be for the sake of freedom” (Murray, 1956, p. 681), suggesting that regulations should ultimately serve to increase freedom rather than diminish it.
• He acknowledges the paradox of imposing constraints while protecting liberties and emphasizes that constraints should be minimal and justified.

2. The Role of Government in Censorship

• He explores whether the state has the authority to impose censorship and under what conditions.
• He notes that government censorship falls under the principle of “police power,” which extends to areas such as public morality and order (Murray, 1956, p. 680).
• Murray warns against excessive government interference, suggesting that censorship should be limited to necessary cases that protect society without infringing on individual rights.

3. Legal Censorship vs. Moral Law

• He differentiates between legal and moral censorship, stating, “It is not the function of the legislator to forbid everything that the moral law forbids, or to enjoin everything that the moral law enjoins” (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
• He emphasizes that law operates on a minimal level, enforcing only the essential moral framework for social order.

4. The Problem of Censoring Sexual Morality

• Murray highlights the challenge of regulating sexual content, noting that no government has ever successfully balanced sexual censorship without infringing on freedom or provoking negative consequences (Murray, 1956, p. 682).
• He points out historical paradoxes, such as the severe censorship of books by the Catholic Church while prostitution was rampant in Rome (Murray, 1956, p. 683).

5. American Constitutional Approach to Freedom of Expression

• He explains that the U.S. has constitutionally favored freedom over censorship, stating, “We have constitutionally decided that the presumption is in favor of freedom, and that the advocate of constraint must make a convincing argument for its necessity” (Murray, 1956, p. 684).
• Prior restraint on expression is largely prohibited, with the government retaining the right to punish offenses post-publication.

6. Non-Governmental Censorship and Social Responsibility

• Murray discusses the role of voluntary associations in censorship, distinguishing between persuasion and coercion.
• He acknowledges the legitimacy of such organizations influencing moral standards but warns against coercive tactics like boycotts and economic pressure (Murray, 1956, p. 688-689).
• He argues that censorship, whether governmental or private, must follow a “juridical process” guided by rationality and consensus.

7. The Role of Professional Competence in Censorship

• He asserts that censorship should not be left to amateurs and that literary critics or experts should guide the process.
• He references the Catholic Church’s approach, stating, “Censorship is no job for the amateur” (Murray, 1956, p. 690).
• He warns against moral indignation overriding objective judgment in censorship decisions.

8. The “Pornography of Violence” as a Greater Concern

• Murray argues that violent imagery combined with sexual themes is more harmful than explicit depictions of sex alone.
• He critiques media that romanticizes violence, calling for restraint in this area (Murray, 1956, p. 691).

9. The Need for Literary Creation Over Censorship

• He concludes by emphasizing that the focus should not be on censorship but on fostering quality literary works.
• He cites Pope Leo XIII, who argued that “there is great danger in not reading good books” (Murray, 1956, p. 691), highlighting the need for moral and intellectual engagement rather than mere restriction.

1. New Historicism and the Power of Institutions

• Theory Overview: New Historicism, developed by Stephen Greenblatt, argues that literature is deeply embedded in historical and political contexts. Institutions such as the Church, the government, and the legal system play a vital role in shaping literary production and reception.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He critiques the role of institutions in controlling literature, stating that censorship has historically been justified as an exercise of police power—the government’s authority to regulate public order (Murray, 1956, p. 680).
  • He acknowledges that moral constraints on literature arise from institutionalized norms but warns that these institutions must balance constraint with the promotion of freedom: “Censorship in the civil order must be a juridical process” (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
  • His discussion of the Catholic Church’s censorship of books (e.g., Index Librorum Prohibitorum) reflects New Historicist concerns about how power structures influence literary canon formation.

2. Reader-Response Theory and the Role of Interpretation

• Theory Overview: Reader-Response Theory, led by theorists such as Wolfgang Iser and Stanley Fish, argues that the meaning of a text is shaped by the reader’s interpretation rather than by authorial intent alone.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He discusses the ambiguity in defining obscenity in literature, acknowledging that different audiences will interpret texts differently: “People in general have a fairly clear notion of what obscenity is. And people in general can make, for themselves, a pretty good judgment on whether a particular work is obscene.” (Murray, 1956, p. 690).
  • His view aligns with Reader-Response Theory’s emphasis on subjective interpretation, as he argues against rigid definitions of obscenity and instead suggests that moral judgments should consider societal context.
  • By emphasizing that censorship should be guided by public consensus rather than imposed standards, Murray acknowledges the importance of the reader’s perspective in determining literary value.

3. Structuralism and the Role of Language in Censorship

• Theory Overview: Structuralism, particularly influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes, explores how language and signs construct meaning within a cultural system.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He critiques legal censorship’s reliance on arbitrary linguistic distinctions, arguing that defining literary obscenity is inherently problematic: “The Supreme Court declares that the category of the sacrilegious is altogether indefinable, while the Post Office rules that Aristophanes’ Lysistrata is an obscene book. This is indeed puzzling.” (Murray, 1956, p. 683).
  • His argument that censorship laws are textually unstable aligns with Barthes’ notion of the “death of the author”—meaning is not fixed, and different readers (or authorities) will derive different interpretations from the same text.
  • By highlighting the arbitrariness of legal and institutional linguistic frameworks, Murray indirectly supports Structuralist critiques of how meaning is socially constructed.

4. Postcolonial Theory and Cultural Hegemony

• Theory Overview: Postcolonial theory, led by Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, and Gayatri Spivak, critiques how dominant cultures impose their values on marginalized groups through literature and censorship.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He highlights the ethnocentric contradictions in Western censorship laws, questioning why certain moral and religious views dictate literature in a pluralistic society: “In a pluralist society, no minority group has the right to demand that government should impose a general censorship… according to the special standards held within one group.” (Murray, 1956, p. 687).
  • His discussion of how American and European societies differ in their definitions of obscenity reflects postcolonial concerns about how dominant cultural narratives control literature and suppress alternative voices (Murray, 1956, p. 684).
  • By advocating for diverse moral perspectives in literary regulation, he challenges hegemonic cultural norms that suppress marginalized voices.

5. Liberal Humanism and Literature’s Moral Function

• Theory Overview: Liberal Humanism, associated with Matthew Arnold and F.R. Leavis, holds that literature’s value lies in its ability to cultivate moral and intellectual refinement.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He argues that censorship should promote literary creation rather than merely restrict texts: “Our chief problem, of course, is not literary censorship, but literary creation.” (Murray, 1956, p. 691).
  • He warns against excessive focus on banning “bad” books instead of encouraging intellectual and artistic excellence: “Leo XIII is indeed remembered for his revision of the Index of Forbidden Books… But he was the first Pope to say that there is great danger in not reading good books.” (Murray, 1956, p. 691).
  • His perspective aligns with Arnold’s vision of literature as a means of cultivating higher moral and intellectual development, arguing that quality literature naturally regulates itself through aesthetic and ethical merit rather than external censorship.

6. Feminist Literary Criticism and Censorship of Sexuality

• Theory Overview: Feminist literary criticism examines how literature represents gender, sexuality, and power dynamics.
• Murray’s Contribution:
  • He acknowledges that literary censorship disproportionately targets works addressing sexuality, reinforcing gendered moral codes: “The strictness of traditional Catholic doctrine in regard to sexual lust appalls the libertarian; the laxness of many Catholic governments in the same regard appalls the Puritan.” (Murray, 1956, p. 683).
  • His critique of the selective censorship of sexual themes over other forms of moral corruption aligns with feminist concerns about how patriarchal institutions regulate female sexuality while permitting other social vices, such as violence.
  • He argues that censorship should prioritize addressing “pornography of violence” rather than purely sexual expression, echoing feminist calls to reconsider what constitutes harmful literature (Murray, 1956, p. 691).

Conclusion: Murray’s Multi-Theoretical Influence

Murray’s Censorship and Literature contributes to literary theory by engaging with:

• New Historicism (institutions shaping literature),
• Reader-Response Theory (subjective interpretation of censorship),
• Structuralism (arbitrary definitions of obscenity),
• Postcolonial Theory (ethnocentric censorship standards),
• Liberal Humanism (literature’s moral role), and
• Feminist Criticism (gendered censorship of sexuality).

His argument that censorship must balance moral concerns with literary freedom continues to inform contemporary debates about literature’s role in society.

1. Inconsistencies in Balancing Freedom and Restraint

• Murray argues that freedom should be the rule and censorship the exception, yet he also justifies some forms of moral regulation (e.g., restrictions on pornography and “pornography of violence”).
• Critics argue that this dual stance lacks clarity—who decides when censorship is justified?
• His assertion that “constraint must be for the sake of freedom” (Murray, 1956, p. 681) is seen as contradictory since restrictions on expression inevitably limit certain freedoms.

2. Over-Reliance on Pragmatism Over Ethical Absolutism

• Murray frames his argument through pragmatism rather than a strict ethical framework, stating that law should regulate only what is socially necessary (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
• Some critics argue that this pragmatic approach lacks moral consistency, as it allows moral and legal relativism—what is considered obscene or harmful varies across societies.
• His approach may justify historically oppressive censorship, such as book bans on political dissidents, under the pretext of “social necessity”.

3. Lack of Attention to Power Structures in Censorship

• While Murray acknowledges that institutions like the Church, state, and voluntary organizations influence censorship, he does not fully critique their power dynamics.
• New Historicist and Postcolonial critics argue that censorship is often a tool for upholding dominant ideological structures, marginalizing dissenting voices (e.g., censorship of anti-colonial literature).
• He does not adequately address how censorship disproportionately affects marginalized communities, particularly in religious or authoritarian contexts.

4. Insufficient Engagement with Feminist and Postcolonial Criticism

• Murray’s discussion of obscenity and morality focuses on sexual content, but he does not address how censorship historically targets feminist and postcolonial literature.
• Feminist critics argue that censorship has long been used to silence discussions of women’s sexuality and autonomy, yet Murray largely frames the issue around moral corruption rather than gendered power structures.
• His discussion of censorship in pluralist societies (Murray, 1956, p. 687) does not fully address how Western censorship frameworks have been imposed on non-Western cultures, particularly in colonial histories.

5. Idealistic View of Public Consensus and Legal Enforcement

• Murray claims that censorship should be guided by public consensus: “No society should expect very much in the way of moral uplift from its censorship statutes.” (Murray, 1956, p. 685).
• Critics argue that this overestimates the fairness of democratic consensus, as majority rule can still suppress minority voices.
• He does not fully address who gets to shape public consensus—powerful elites, religious institutions, or legal authorities?

6. Overemphasis on Religious Morality in Censorship Debates

• While Murray argues for pluralism, he still leans heavily on Catholic moral philosophy, using Christian ethical reasoning to justify certain censorship principles.
• His emphasis on moral constraints in literature (Murray, 1956, p. 690) suggests a preference for religious moral frameworks, which some critics view as exclusionary in secular or multi-faith societies.
• Secular critics argue that censorship debates should be guided by human rights principles rather than religious morality.

7. Failure to Address the Role of Economic and Corporate Censorship

• Murray primarily focuses on governmental and voluntary censorship but does not discuss corporate censorship, where publishers, media companies, and private entities restrict literature based on commercial interests.
• In the modern era, corporate media often suppresses politically controversial works—a major oversight in Murray’s framework.
• His legalistic focus on state censorship does not address how economic power structures influence what literature gets published and distributed.

1. Expansion of Mimetic Theory into Theatre Studies

• Yde argues that René Girard’s mimetic theory, despite its importance in anthropology and literary studies, has been neglected in theatre studies (p. 88).
• He applies Girard’s theory to dramatic structure and performance, particularly in the analysis of Martin McDonagh’s plays The Lonesome West and A Behanding in Spokane (p. 89).
• This expands Girardian analysis beyond narrative literature and social sciences into dramatic literature and theatre practice (p. 90).

2. Reframing Tragic Theory through Mimetic Theory

• Traditional Aristotelian interpretations of tragedy emphasize catharsis, but Yde, following Girard, reinterprets tragedy as an expression of the scapegoating mechanism (p. 99).
• He argues that Greek tragedy exposes but does not fully reveal the violent resolution of social crises through scapegoating (p. 96).
• Tragic characters like Oedipus are both pollutants and sacrificial victims, embodying the paradox of sacred violence (p. 97).
• This perspective shifts the understanding of catharsis from emotional purgation to the ritualistic expulsion of a surrogate victim (p. 100).

3. Shakespearean Criticism and the Problem of Mimetic Rivalry

• Yde builds on Girard’s reinterpretation of Shakespeare, showing how plays like Othello, Hamlet, and Richard III illustrate mimetic rivalry and undifferentiation (p. 95).
• He argues that Shakespeare gradually moves toward the renunciation of mimetic violence, especially in A Winter’s Tale and The Tempest (p. 105).
• The mimetic doubles in Shakespearean drama (e.g., Iago/Othello, Hamlet/Claudius, Richard III/every other rival) support Girard’s view that characters are often indistinguishable in their reciprocal rivalries (p. 98).
• This extends Shakespearean criticism by framing his plays as profound explorations of mimetic conflict (p. 100).

4. Deconstruction of Individualism in Romantic/Heroic Narratives

• Yde critiques the romantic notion of autonomous individual desire, emphasizing that desire is always mediated (p. 90).
• Characters in tragedy and modern drama do not desire independently but through mimetic models, leading to inevitable conflict (p. 94).
• He aligns Girard’s views with Dostoevsky, Stendhal, and Proust, who similarly reject the idea of authentic, self-generated desire (p. 100).
• This challenges the romantic and existentialist traditions that depict individualism as a heroic ideal (p. 104).

5. Contribution to Post-Structuralist and Psychoanalytic Theory

• While rejecting Freudian psychoanalysis, Yde shows how mimetic theory offers an alternative explanation for desire and aggression (p. 102).
• Instead of Oedipal desire, Girard’s theory suggests that parental figures serve as mimetic models, shaping desire through rivalry rather than repression (p. 102).
• This resonates with Lacan’s concept of the “mirror stage”, where identity is formed through external mediation (p. 97).
• The fluidity of character identity in drama, as demonstrated in Shakespeare and McDonagh, aligns with post-structuralist notions of the decentered subject (p. 103).

6. Critique of Nietzschean Dionysian Theory

• Yde contrasts Nietzsche’s praise of Dionysian violence with Girard’s revelation of the scapegoat mechanism (p. 106).
• Nietzsche celebrates the Dionysian as a return to primal vitality, while Girard shows that Dionysian cults are founded on sacrificial violence (p. 107).
• Yde suggests that Nietzsche unknowingly aligns himself with the persecutors, rather than the victims (p. 107).
• This challenges Nietzschean aesthetics by reframing tragedy as a critique of sacrificial violence rather than an affirmation of it (p. 108).

7. Application to Contemporary Theatre and Martin McDonagh

• Yde extends mimetic theory to modern theatre, particularly McDonagh’s portrayal of violence and rivalry (p. 99).
• A Behanding in Spokane demonstrates mimetic contagion, double mediation, and the futility of revenge (p. 101).
• The Lonesome West reinforces Girard’s “enemy brothers” motif, where familial and social bonds disintegrate due to mimetic rivalry (p. 105).
• This shows that mimetic structures are not limited to classical tragedy but persist in contemporary drama, bridging literary theory and modern theatre (p. 103).

8. Relevance to Apocalyptic and Political Theory

• Yde highlights Girard’s claim that modernity is in a prolonged sacrificial crisis, as scapegoating no longer works to resolve violence (p. 103).
• He connects this to global terrorism, racial conflict, and ideological wars, showing how mimetic rivalry fuels contemporary social unrest (p. 104).
• The escalation of mutual destruction in war and politics reflects Girard’s “escalation to extremes”, making his theory relevant to political philosophy (p. 103).
• This contribution aligns Girard with apocalyptic critiques of modern violence, such as Walter Benjamin’s theory of divine violence (p. 105).