“Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by María Lugones, first appeared in Hypatia in 2010, critiques the modern, colonial, gender system, which she argues is intrinsically tied to capitalist exploitation, racial hierarchy, and the dehumanization of the colonized.
Introduction: “Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones
“Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones, first appeared in Hypatia in 2010, critiques the modern, colonial, gender system, which she argues is intrinsically tied to capitalist exploitation, racial hierarchy, and the dehumanization of the colonized. By framing gender as a colonial imposition rather than a natural or universal construct, Lugones demonstrates how coloniality subjugated both indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans by assigning them roles outside the European norms of “man” and “woman,” effectively rendering them “non-human.” Her work challenges feminist universalism and highlights the “colonial difference,” a fractured space where resistance to oppressive systems emerges. Lugones writes, “The coloniality of gender enables me to understand the oppressive imposition as a complex interaction of economic, racializing, and gendering systems,” emphasizing the inseparability of these oppressions. Her work has profound implications for literature and literary theory, offering a lens to analyze how narratives resist or perpetuate colonial hierarchies through gendered, racialized, and sexualized representations.
Summary of “Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones
The Coloniality of Gender Lugones introduces the concept of the coloniality of gender, which critiques the modern/colonial gender system as a hierarchical and racially differentiated construct imposed during colonization. This system dehumanized colonized peoples by classifying them outside the European categories of “man” and “woman” (Lugones, 2010). Colonized men were labeled as “not-human-as-not-men,” and colonized women as “not-human-as-not-women,” emphasizing their supposed bestial and hypersexual nature. This dichotomy was central to justifying colonial domination, intertwining race, gender, and sexuality (p. 743).
Resistance Through Non-Modern Practices Lugones challenges the Western framing of modernity, which relies on dichotomous categories, by emphasizing the existence of non-modern ways of being that resist colonial logic. These include ecological, economic, and spiritual practices that maintain communal and relational values, opposing the hierarchical, capitalist framework (p. 741). She critiques the reduction of non-modern practices to “premodern,” asserting their active role in resistance.
The Fractured Locus of Resistance The essay underscores the fractured locus as a space where colonized individuals navigate their identities amid oppressive systems. Resistance, Lugones argues, emerges from the tension between the colonial imposition of subjectivity and the resilience of native communal and relational practices (p. 747). This fractured locus reflects the duality of inhabiting colonial structures while simultaneously resisting them.
Critique of Feminist Universalism Lugones critiques feminist universalism for failing to account for the intersectionality of race, class, and sexuality. Modern feminist frameworks often center on homogeneous categories like “woman,” which erase the lived realities of women of color and other marginalized groups. For example, she states, “To see non-white women is to exceed ‘categorial’ logic,” advocating for a decolonial feminism that embraces multiplicity and intersectionality (p. 740).
Decolonial Feminism as Praxis Decolonial feminism is not merely theoretical; it is a praxis of lived resistance. It involves critiquing and transforming racialized, colonial, and capitalist systems of oppression. Lugones emphasizes the need for a coalitional politics rooted in the relational subjectivity of oppressed communities. This involves learning from the histories and practices of marginalized groups to build solidarity (p. 746).
The Role of Language in Resistance Language plays a critical role in both colonial domination and resistance. Lugones highlights the danger of translating indigenous concepts into colonial frameworks, as it often erases the relational and communal meanings of these terms. For example, she describes the Aymara concept of qamaña (living well) as inseparable from communal practices, which resist colonial individualism and capitalist logic (p. 750).
Reimagining Coalition and Relationality Lugones calls for an ethics of coalition-in-the-making that resists the reduction of multiplicity into dichotomies. Coalitions should embrace difference and be rooted in the histories and practices of resistance at the colonial difference. Such coalitions defy hierarchical logic and privilege relationality over domination (p. 754).
The Colonial Difference as a Site of Possibility The colonial difference is a space where the epistemological fractures of colonial power become visible. It provides an opportunity for border thinking, allowing subaltern perspectives to challenge hegemonic narratives. Resistance at the colonial difference involves rethinking relationality and creating new possibilities for being beyond the dichotomous framework of coloniality (p. 751).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones
Theoretical Term/Concept
Definition
Key Aspects/Implications
Coloniality of Gender
A framework analyzing the imposition of hierarchical, racialized, and binary gender constructs through colonialism.
Examines how colonial systems dehumanized colonized peoples by denying them European gender categories, positioning them as “non-human” (Lugones, 2010, p. 743).
Modern/Colonial Gender System
The colonial framework that ties gender hierarchies to racial and sexual oppression.
Argues that European colonialism introduced rigid, dichotomous gender roles (man/woman) as markers of civilization, dehumanizing colonized peoples (p. 744).
Fractured Locus
The space of tension where colonized individuals navigate both colonial impositions and their own resistant subjectivities.
Highlights the duality and complexity of colonial subjects who are simultaneously shaped by and resist colonial frameworks (p. 747).
Colonial Difference
The hierarchical distinction between modern/colonial systems and non-modern ways of being.
Serves as a site of epistemological tension and possibility, where alternative ways of being and knowing challenge colonial logic (p. 751).
Non-Modern Practices
Indigenous and communal practices that resist colonial categorial and hierarchical logic.
Includes ecological, economic, and spiritual traditions that oppose individualism and capitalism, emphasizing relationality and community (p. 741).
Infra-Politics
Everyday, subtle forms of resistance that occur outside the formal, public political sphere.
Demonstrates how oppressed communities create resistant meanings and practices through relational and communal life (p. 746).
Epistemological Decolonization
A process of challenging and rejecting colonial knowledge systems and frameworks.
Calls for reading the social through indigenous cosmologies rather than imposing Western gendered frameworks on them (p. 749).
Categorial Logic
The modern logic of organizing the world into rigid, homogeneous, and dichotomous categories.
Criticized for erasing intersectional identities, such as non-white women, and reducing complexity in favor of hierarchical binaries (p. 740).
Decolonial Feminism
A feminist praxis that critiques colonial, capitalist, and racialized gender oppression while fostering transformative resistance.
Focuses on relational subjectivities, coalition-building, and learning from marginalized groups’ histories and practices (p. 746).
Relational Subjectivity
A form of subjectivity rooted in community and relational practices rather than individualism.
Highlights the communal and intersubjective nature of resistance, opposing the Western, individualist subject (p. 746).
Border Thinking
A way of thinking that emerges from the colonial difference, enabling subaltern perspectives to challenge dominant narratives.
Serves as a tool for epistemological resistance, emphasizing the fractured and multiple identities of colonized peoples (p. 752).
Coloniality of Power
A concept by Aníbal Quijano, extended by Lugones to include the intersection of race, gender, and class under colonialism.
Links racial hierarchies and capitalist exploitation, showing how colonialism shaped global systems of domination (p. 745).
Oppressing-Resisting Process
The dynamic interaction between colonial oppression and the resistance it generates.
Emphasizes that colonized peoples actively resist and adapt to colonial domination, creating new forms of being and knowing (p. 747).
Ethics of Coalition-In-The-Making
A framework for building coalitions across differences while resisting the erasure of multiplicity.
Encourages solidarity based on understanding and embracing differences, rather than imposing homogenizing frameworks (p. 754).
Contribution of “Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones to Literary Theory/Theories
Lugones extends decolonial theory into the realm of gender and sexuality, offering a framework to analyze literary texts that grapple with colonial legacies.
Her focus on the coloniality of gender encourages literary critics to interrogate how texts depict the intersections of race, gender, and colonial power (Lugones, 2010, p. 743).
The concept of the fractured locus highlights the multiplicity of identities in colonial contexts, aiding the analysis of characters who resist and navigate colonial domination.
Lugones critiques feminist universalism, which often ignores the lived experiences of women of color, and instead emphasizes the intersection of race, class, and gender (p. 740).
This critique informs intersectional literary analyses that examine how race and gender interact within texts to construct oppression or agency.
Postcolonial Literary Studies
By analyzing the colonial difference, Lugones provides a lens to examine how literature portrays the hierarchical separation of modernity from non-modern practices (p. 751).
Her work encourages postcolonial literary critics to explore indigenous and communal ways of knowing, particularly how these resist colonial frameworks.
Lugones’ critique of heterosexualism in the modern/colonial gender system invites queer readings of literature that examine the imposition of rigid sexual binaries (p. 746).
Her focus on non-conforming identities, such as the “viragos” or “hermaphrodites,” offers tools to deconstruct normative sexual and gender roles in texts.
The connection Lugones draws between colonial gender systems and ecological destruction (p. 744) informs ecofeminist literary theory.
Her analysis of non-modern ecological practices offers a framework for reading texts that depict indigenous relationships with nature and resist capitalist exploitation.
The concept of infra-politics provides a framework for analyzing how marginalized characters or communities resist domination through subtle, everyday acts (p. 746).
Lugones’ emphasis on the coloniality of power and subaltern perspectives enriches subaltern studies by revealing the nuanced dynamics of oppression and resistance in literature.
Her call for an ethics of coalition-in-the-making (p. 754) provides a methodological tool for examining how literary texts construct solidarity across differences.
This approach allows literary critics to highlight how texts promote intersectional and decolonial feminist praxis.
Epistemological Decolonization in Literature
Lugones’ advocacy for reading cosmologies from within (p. 749) invites literary critics to approach indigenous narratives on their own terms, resisting the imposition of colonial categories.
This contribution helps decolonize literary studies by validating alternative epistemologies within texts.
Examples of Critiques Through “Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones
Literary Work
Critique Through Lugones’ Framework
Key Concepts Applied
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
The novel’s portrayal of gender roles in Igbo society can be analyzed for the influence of colonial gender hierarchies imposed by the British.
Coloniality of Gender, Fractured Locus, Categorial Logic
Characters like Okonkwo reflect the colonial imposition of rigid masculinity and the dehumanization of non-European cosmologies.
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Set in the aftermath of slavery, the novel’s depiction of Sethe’s struggles reveals the intersectionality of race, gender, and colonial violence.
Coloniality of Power, Decolonial Feminism, Oppressing-Resisting Process
Morrison highlights the legacy of colonial gender systems in the dehumanization of Black women through their bodies and labor.
Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys
Antoinette’s identity as a Creole woman illustrates the colonial difference, as she is excluded from both European and indigenous cultures.
Critics may argue that terms like “colonial difference” and “fractured locus” lack precise definitions, making their application in practice or analysis challenging.
Overgeneralization of Colonial Impositions
The critique that Lugones may overgeneralize colonial impacts by framing all indigenous and colonized cultures as uniformly resisting modernity. This perspective risks homogenizing diverse experiences.
Insufficient Engagement with Local Specificities
Lugones’ analysis of non-modern practices might be critiqued for insufficient attention to the unique contexts, histories, and cosmologies of specific indigenous or colonized groups.
Limited Address of Gender Fluidity Beyond the Binary
While Lugones critiques colonial impositions of gender binaries, some scholars might argue that her analysis does not deeply engage with the spectrum of gender fluidity present in pre-colonial societies.
Potential Essentialism in Non-Modern Practices
The emphasis on non-modern practices as inherently resistant may be seen as idealizing or essentializing these practices without fully interrogating their complexities or internal contradictions.
Application to Contemporary Contexts
Some critics might question how effectively Lugones’ framework applies to contemporary issues of globalization, digital capitalism, and modern gender dynamics, which often transcend the colonial-modern binary.
Insufficient Methodological Guidance
While her work emphasizes resistance and decolonial praxis, critics might argue that it lacks clear methodological guidance for applying these insights in academic or activist work.
Exclusion of Other Forms of Oppression
Critics could point out that Lugones’ focus on the intersection of race, gender, and coloniality might not sufficiently address other axes of oppression, such as ability, religion, or ethnicity.
Reliance on Western Academic Structures
Some scholars might critique Lugones’ reliance on Western academic discourse and frameworks to critique coloniality, potentially reproducing the epistemologies she critiques.
Limited Examples of Practical Resistance
The essay may be critiqued for providing theoretical insights without enough detailed examples of lived resistance or strategies for applying her framework beyond academic analysis.
Representative Quotations from “Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones with Explanation
“Modernity organizes the world ontologically in terms of atomic, homogeneous, separable categories.”
Lugones critiques the reductionist categorial logic of modernity, arguing that it ignores the intersectionality of identities, particularly those of non-white women, rendering their experiences invisible.
“The coloniality of gender enables me to understand the oppressive imposition as a complex interaction of economic, racializing, and gendering systems.”
Lugones introduces the concept of the “coloniality of gender,” emphasizing how colonialism imposed interlocking systems of oppression, intertwining race, gender, and class in ways that persist in modern systems of domination.
“The semantic consequence of the coloniality of gender is that ‘colonized woman’ is an empty category: no women are colonized; no colonized females are women.”
Lugones critiques the inability of colonial frameworks to recognize colonized women as fully human or gendered, challenging the assumptions of universal womanhood perpetuated by Western feminism.
“Resistance to the coloniality of gender is thus historically complex.”
Resistance, for Lugones, is not straightforward or uniform but emerges from varied and historically situated interactions between the colonized and the colonial system, highlighting the agency within oppressive frameworks.
“Decolonizing gender is necessarily a praxical task.”
Lugones calls for a lived, practical engagement with colonial frameworks of gender to critique and transform the oppressive systems and practices that have historically marginalized colonized women and communities.
“The colonial ‘civilizing mission’ was the euphemistic mask of brutal access to people’s bodies through unimaginable exploitation, violent sexual violation, control of reproduction, and systematic terror.”
This statement exposes the brutality and violence underlying the colonial narrative of “civilization,” particularly targeting colonized women, who faced dehumanization and exploitation in the name of progress and modernity.
“One does not resist the coloniality of gender alone. One resists it from within a way of understanding the world and living in it that is shared.”
Lugones underscores the communal nature of resistance, emphasizing that decolonial efforts are rooted in collective practices and shared knowledge, rather than in isolated, individual acts of defiance.
“The fractured locus includes the hierarchical dichotomy that constitutes the subjectification of the colonized.”
The concept of the “fractured locus” describes the tension colonized individuals experience as they navigate imposed colonial frameworks and their own resistant, culturally grounded identities.
“I propose to interpret the colonized, non-human males from the civilizing perspective as judged from the normative understanding of ‘man,’ the human being par excellence.”
Lugones critiques how colonial frameworks excluded colonized peoples from the category of humanity, rendering them “non-human” in order to justify their subjugation and exploitation.
“Learning each other’s histories has been an important ingredient in understanding deep coalitions among U.S. women of color.”
Lugones emphasizes the importance of shared historical understanding in building solidarity and coalitions among marginalized groups, particularly women of color, to resist the coloniality of power and gender.
Suggested Readings: “Toward A Decolonial Feminism” by Mari´a Lugones
LUGONES, MARÍA. “Methodological Notes toward a Decolonial Feminism.” Decolonizing Epistemologies: Latina/o Theology and Philosophy: Latina/o Theology and Philosophy, edited by ADA MARÍA ISASI-DÍAZ and EDUARDO MENDIETA, Fordham University Press, 2012, pp. 68–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1c999dr.7. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
CARASTATHIS, ANNA. “Intersectionality and Decolonial Feminism.” Intersectionality: Origins, Contestations, Horizons, University of Nebraska Press, 2016, pp. 199–232. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1fzhfz8.11. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
Rodrigues, Laís. “Decolonial Feminism: María Lugones’ Influences and Contributions.” Estudos Feministas, vol. 30, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1–14. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48663169. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
“Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum first appeared in 2015 in the journal Constellations (Volume 22, Issue 3).
Introduction: “Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum
“Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum first appeared in 2015 in the journal Constellations (Volume 22, Issue 3). The article critically examines the emancipatory aspirations of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, as envisioned by Horkheimer and Adorno, in addressing class, racism, and colonialism. While the Frankfurt School made significant strides in analyzing modern domination, Baum critiques their Eurocentric focus, which largely neglected colonial racism and anti-colonial struggles. Drawing on thinkers like Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, and Lucius Outlaw, Baum argues for an expansion of Critical Theory to address the global interplay of racism and capitalism, emphasizing that colonial and racial domination are integral to understanding modernity. A pivotal insight from the article highlights Horkheimer’s assertion: “As true as it is that one can understand anti-Semitism only from our society, as true it appears to me to become that by now society itself can be properly understood only through Antisemitism.” Baum contends that this framework should extend to all forms of racism, calling for a decolonization of Critical Theory that integrates both historical and contemporary struggles against racial and colonial oppression. This work holds importance in literary theory by urging a reorientation of critical frameworks to inclusively confront race, identity, and colonial histories as essential elements of social critique.
Summary of “Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum
Introduction to Critical Theory and Its Limitations
Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School aimed for a “truly human society” free of domination (Horkheimer & Adorno) but initially focused on class-based inequalities within capitalist societies (p. 421).
Edward Said critiqued the Frankfurt School for neglecting racism, colonialism, and anti-imperialist resistance (p. 421). Baum contends this critique is valid but overstated.
Horkheimer and Adorno on Racism
Early Frankfurt School theorists primarily analyzed social domination generally rather than racial issues (p. 421).
By the 1930s–40s, Horkheimer and Adorno focused on European anti-Semitism, linking it to capitalism’s structural inequalities but failed to adequately address colonial racism (p. 422).
Anti-Semitism was analyzed as integral to capitalism but not reducible to class issues (p. 423). They highlighted the interplay between class and race, showing how racial ideologies diverted working-class frustrations from capitalist elites to minorities.
Strengths and Limitations of Their Analysis
Capitalism and Racial Ideologies:
Racial ideologies like anti-Semitism masked class domination and preserved capitalism by scapegoating minorities, such as Jews (p. 423).
Their psychoanalytic lens illuminated racism’s psychological mechanisms but neglected how racism intersected with colonialism and non-European identities (p. 424).
Racial Schema:
Horkheimer and Adorno proposed a triadic racial schema: the dominant group (e.g., Aryans), those “kept in place” (e.g., Blacks), and those eradicated (e.g., Jews) (p. 424).
They acknowledged links between European racism and global patterns of domination but failed to expand beyond European contexts (p. 424–425).
They analyzed racism through the lens of mimesis, showing how fear of difference fueled false projections that mischaracterized racial minorities (p. 425).
This psychological framework clarified how racism suppressed autonomy and distorted recognition of differences (p. 426).
Baum advocates for revising Critical Theory to address colonialism and global racism:
Frantz Fanon critiqued Eurocentric Marxism, emphasizing the centrality of race in colonialism and capitalism (p. 427).
Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition supports understanding racism as a recognition order that shapes social stratification (p. 428).
Decolonizing Critical Theory means reformulating it to understand modern capitalist societies as fundamentally shaped by racialized inequalities (p. 429).
Toward a New Critical Theory of Racism
Race, Class, and Status:
Racialized status and class are intertwined yet distinct, shaping economic and social hierarchies (p. 429).
Modern capitalism created racialized hierarchies through colonialism, slavery, and exclusionary labor markets (p. 430).
Recognition and Identity:
Racialized identities are both modes of domination and sources of meaning. A critical theory must balance anti-racism with recognition of cultural identities (p. 431).
Historical Injustice:
Addressing racism requires confronting historical injustices, such as slavery and colonial exploitation, through critical reflection and reparative justice (p. 432).
Civic Education and Memory:
Following Adorno, Baum emphasizes the importance of “working through the past” to prevent historical amnesia and cultivate reflective engagement with racism’s legacies (p. 433).
Conclusion
Decolonizing Critical Theory involves expanding its analytical scope to incorporate colonial and racial histories, thus addressing modern societies as inherently shaped by intertwined racial and class inequalities (p. 434).
A dual approach is needed: genealogical analysis of domination and a hermeneutic understanding of lived racial identities to promote justice and reconciliation (p. 434).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum
Challenges the Eurocentric focus of Frankfurt School Critical Theory, particularly its neglect of colonial racism and anti-colonial resistance (p. 421).
Proposes a broader, historically attuned framework for understanding racial hierarchies and their cultural representations (p. 427).
Intersection of Race and Class in Modernity:
Highlights the interplay between capitalism and racial domination, emphasizing how class and race intersect in literary and cultural narratives (p. 424).
Draws on Frantz Fanon’s critique to “stretch Marxian analysis” to address the colonial dimensions of exploitation and oppression (p. 427).
Critique of Enlightenment Ideals in Literature:
Analyzes how instrumental rationality, a hallmark of Enlightenment thought, appears as both a tool for human emancipation and a mechanism for domination in cultural and literary contexts (p. 423).
Provides insights into how literature reflects the double-edged nature of Enlightenment values, including their role in sustaining colonial ideologies (p. 425).
Application of Mimesis to Representation of Difference:
Uses Adorno and Horkheimer’s concept of mimesis to explain how literature can both represent and distort cultural and racial differences (p. 425).
Suggests that regressive mimesis, rooted in false projection, informs racist stereotypes and tropes in literary texts (p. 426).
The Politics of Recognition in Literature:
Introduces Axel Honneth’s concept of recognition to analyze how literature portrays the struggles of marginalized groups for acknowledgment and equality (p. 428).
Explores how literature can reflect and challenge societal recognition orders, particularly those tied to race and identity (p. 431).
Historical Injustice and Literary Memory:
Engages Adorno’s concept of “working through the past” to examine how literature confronts historical injustices, including slavery, colonialism, and the Holocaust (p. 433).
Highlights literature’s role in preserving memory and addressing the effacement of historical injustices in capitalist societies (p. 432).
Triadic Racial Schema in Narrative Structure:
Proposes a triadic racial schema (dominant group, subordinate group, and exterminated group) as a lens for analyzing racial dynamics in literature and narrative structures (p. 424).
Encourages re-evaluating literary depictions of racial hierarchies within global and historical contexts (p. 428).
Decolonizing the Canon:
Advocates for revisiting and decolonizing traditional literary canons to include narratives that address colonial racism and global injustices (p. 427).
Highlights the importance of incorporating voices and perspectives from racialized and colonized identities into critical and literary theory (p. 431).
Suggests combining genealogical and hermeneutic approaches to interpret racialized identities as both cultural constructs and sources of meaning in literary texts (p. 431).
Encourages a dual reading of literature that considers both historical constructions of identity and lived experiences of race (p. 431).
Emphasis on Reconciliation and Difference:
Draws on Adorno’s vision of an emancipated society to suggest that literature should reconcile differences rather than erase them, promoting respect for diverse identities and histories (p. 426).
Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum
Literary Work
Theoretical Lens from Baum
Critique Example
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
– Critique of Eurocentrism – Colonial racism and capitalist domination
Explores how Conrad’s depiction of Africa reflects colonial ideologies and Eurocentric perspectives, portraying Africa as a site of barbarism to justify European domination (Baum, p. 424). Challenges the racial schema of colonizer/colonized.
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
– Hermeneutics of racialized identity – Postcolonial recognition
Analyzes the struggle of Igbo society against the imposition of colonial ideologies. Explores the lived experience of racialized identities and their cultural meaning in resisting colonial domination (Baum, p. 428).
Beloved by Toni Morrison
– Historical injustice and working through the past – Racial trauma in capitalist modernity
Examines how Morrison’s narrative confronts the legacy of slavery, highlighting the importance of historical memory and addressing intergenerational trauma linked to racial injustice (Baum, p. 433).
The Tempest by William Shakespeare
– Colonial racism and early modern capitalist structures – Mimesis and representation of difference
Uses Baum’s insights to analyze Caliban as a racialized figure representing colonial subjects. Examines how the text reflects early colonial ideologies and constructs racial difference to justify domination (Baum, p. 425).
Criticism Against “Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum
Eurocentric Focus of the Frankfurt School
Despite Baum’s attempt to recover the critical potential of Frankfurt School theories, critics may argue that the school’s foundational Eurocentrism remains a limitation (Baum, p. 424).
The reliance on Horkheimer and Adorno’s theories may perpetuate a Western bias, failing to fully engage with non-European epistemologies.
Insufficient Engagement with Non-European Thinkers
While Baum draws on figures like Fanon and Outlaw, the work might not sufficiently integrate perspectives from other decolonial theorists, particularly from Asia, Latin America, or Indigenous traditions (Baum, p. 427).
Overemphasis on Historical Racism
Critics may argue that the focus on historical racism and colonialism limits its applicability to contemporary forms of racial injustice and intersectional oppression in globalized contexts (Baum, p. 431).
Abstract Theoretical Framework
Baum’s reliance on abstract concepts like “mimesis” and “recognition” may make the work less accessible for activists and practitioners seeking concrete strategies for combating racism and colonialism (Baum, p. 425).
Neglect of Gender and Intersectionality
While Baum acknowledges intersecting forms of oppression, the work could be critiqued for not giving enough prominence to gender, sexuality, or other axes of identity beyond race and class (Baum, p. 428).
Limited Engagement with Non-Western Literary Traditions
The framework focuses on critiquing Western modernity but offers limited tools for analyzing non-Western texts or cultural traditions (Baum, p. 426).
Dependency on Psychoanalytic Concepts
The use of psychoanalysis, particularly in Adorno’s work, could be critiqued for being outdated or incompatible with contemporary critiques of race and colonialism (Baum, p. 430).
Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum with Explanation
“The critical theorists’ account of racism was Eurocentric and too narrowly focused on anti-Semitism.”
Highlights the Frankfurt School’s limitations in addressing global racial and colonial dynamics beyond European contexts, emphasizing the need for decolonizing their framework.
“Critical Theory itself needs to be decolonized.”
Advocates for expanding Critical Theory by integrating perspectives that address colonialism, racism, and global inequality in modern society.
“Modern capitalism has never been one-dimensionally class-divided… racialized status hierarchies are integral.”
Connects Marxist analysis to racialized hierarchies, showing how capitalism’s inequalities are shaped by race, not just class.
“For the Nazis, ‘the blacks must be kept in their place, but the Jews must be wiped from the face of the earth.’”
Demonstrates Horkheimer and Adorno’s limited but provocative racial schema, suggesting a hierarchy of racial oppression within Nazism and raising questions about its global relevance.
“Modern racism can be comprehended adequately only through a critical examination of modern capitalist society.”
Baum reformulates Horkheimer’s analysis, connecting the development of racism with the structures and ideologies of modern capitalism.
“Colonialism and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn their flag and their police.”
Echoes Fanon’s assertion of the ongoing impact of colonialism, emphasizing the need for reparative justice and a thorough critique of colonial legacies.
“Horkheimer and Adorno failed to appreciate how racism, including colonial racism, has been a formative feature.”
Critiques the Frankfurt School for neglecting the historical centrality of colonialism and racism in shaping global modernity and capitalist development.
“An emancipated society… would not be a unitary state, but the reconciliation of differences.”
Reflects Adorno’s vision of a society where differences are respected without hierarchy, contrasting with the homogenizing tendencies of oppressive regimes.
“The task of overcoming racist degradation… is integrally linked with the goal of undoing the conditions that foster prejudice.”
Emphasizes that systemic racism must be addressed by dismantling political and economic systems that perpetuate inequality.
“Historical racial injustice demands acknowledgement, but no reparations could fully compensate for the damage done.”
Acknowledges the profound harm caused by systemic racism and colonialism while advocating for reparative justice as a step toward reconciliation.
Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Bruce Baum
Baum, Bruce. “On the Political Sociology of Intersectional Equality and Difference: Insights from Axel Honneth’s Recognition Theory.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 48, no. 2, 2022, pp. 197–234. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48747299. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
Morgan, Marcia, 1970-. The Affect of Dissident Language and Aesthetic Emancipation at the Margins: A Possible Dialogue between Theodor W. Adorno and Julia Kristeva. no. 1, 2016, pp. 167–91. JSTOR, https://jstor.org/stable/community.31637736. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
MILLS, CHARLES W. “CRITICIZING CRITICAL THEORY.” Critical Theory in Critical Times: Transforming the Global Political and Economic Order, edited by PENELOPE DEUTSCHER and CRISTINA LAFONT, Columbia University Press, 2017, pp. 233–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/deut18150.15. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
Kim, Sue J. “Introduction: Decolonizing Narrative Theory.” Journal of Narrative Theory, vol. 42, no. 3, 2012, pp. 233–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484772. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
“Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo first appeared in the journal Afterall in 2017.
Introduction: “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo
“Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo first appeared in the journal Afterall in 2017. This essay examines the enduring structures of coloniality that pervade global power, knowledge, and existence, arguing for a necessary and active process of decoloniality to challenge and delink from these paradigms. Mignolo engages with the concept of the Colonial Matrix of Power (CMP), a framework that has shaped global hierarchies since the sixteenth century and evolved through various ideological mutations, from Christianity to secular liberalism and neoliberal globalism. He asserts the importance of delinking from Western epistemological dichotomies and re-existing on terms rooted in local histories and legacies. Central to this process is the rejection of the homogenizing tendencies of Western modernity and the affirmation of pluriversality. As Mignolo writes, “Decoloniality operates on pluri-versality and truth and not in uni-versality and truth.” The article’s significance in literature and literary theory lies in its critique of modernity’s universalizing narratives and its call for epistemic disobedience, offering tools for rethinking identity, agency, and resistance in a postcolonial and global context.
Summary of “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo
Main Ideas:
1. Coloniality as a Persistent Structure
Definition of Coloniality: Mignolo explains that coloniality refers to the pervasive and long-lasting “Colonial Matrix of Power” (CMP), a global structure managing knowledge, power, and being since the 16th century (p. 39).
Continuity through Mutations: From Christianity to secularism, liberalism, and neoliberalism, the CMP continuously adapted to maintain Western dominance (p. 39).
Key Quotation: “The CMP controls and touches upon all aspects and trajectories of our lives” (p. 39).
2. Delinking and Re-Existing
Delinking as Resistance: Mignolo advocates for delinking from the imposed dichotomies of Western modernity—such as the knower/known or subject/object—to create new modes of existence (p. 43).
Re-Existence Beyond Resistance: Re-existing is presented as more than resisting; it involves reclaiming one’s histories and legacies to construct independent frameworks of existence (p. 44).
Key Quotation: “Re-existing depends on the place of the individual in the local histories disavowed, diminished, and demonized in the narratives of Western modernity” (p. 44).
3. The Limits of Modernity and Universalism
Critique of Universalism: The narrative of universal progress, inherent in modernity, is identified as a tool for sustaining the CMP (p. 40).
Pluriversality vs. Universality: Decoloniality operates on pluriversality—recognizing diverse modes of existence—rather than imposing singular truths or solutions (p. 44).
Key Quotation: “Decoloniality operates on pluri-versality and truth and not in uni-versality and truth” (p. 44).
Interplay between Indigeneity and Decoloniality: Mignolo discusses how indigeneity often takes precedence for some over decoloniality, yet the two remain interconnected. Indigenous struggles for land and dignity inherently challenge the CMP (p. 43).
Relevance of Local Histories: He emphasizes the importance of learning from indigenous peoples and their methods of resisting Western modernity (p. 43).
Key Quotation: “What is relevant is an understanding of the trust of diverse projects around the world…delinking from modernity/coloniality to relink with their own memories and legacies” (p. 45).
5. The Role of Decolonial Thinking
Epistemic Disobedience: Mignolo proposes a form of civil and epistemic disobedience to reject the dichotomies and classifications imposed by the West (p. 43).
Challenges to Modern Knowledge: He questions the primacy of Western rationality and emphasizes the role of emotion and sensing in knowledge creation (p. 43).
Key Quotation: “Decolonial thinking strives to delink itself from the imposed dichotomies articulated in the West, namely the knower and the known, the subject and the object” (p. 43).
6. Decoloniality as a Pluralistic Political Project
Rejecting a Master Plan: Decoloniality is not a singular framework or a universal design; it is a political project rooted in the specific needs and histories of diverse communities (p. 44).
Examples of Decolonial Struggles: Mignolo cites the Bandung Conference, Afro-Caribbean movements, and indigenous struggles as emblematic of decoloniality in practice (p. 45).
Key Quotation: “There cannot be one and only one decolonial master plan—it would be far too modern, too Eurocentric, too provincial, and still too universal” (p. 44).
7. The Global Implications of Decoloniality
Global Decolonial Responses: Mignolo identifies the rise of de-westernization efforts (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) as part of a broader rejection of neoliberal globalization and Western dominance (p. 40).
Interconnection of Struggles: Decoloniality connects diverse global movements resisting Western narratives and seeking autonomy in defining their futures (p. 45).
Key Quotation: “Today decoloniality is everywhere; it is a connector between hundreds, perhaps thousands, of organized responses delinking from modernity and Western civilization” (p. 45).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo
Theoretical Term/Concept
Definition
Significance
Coloniality
A structure of power, control, and knowledge that emerged with colonialism and persists in various forms today.
Highlights how colonial hierarchies and logic continue to shape global systems of power and identity.
Colonial Matrix of Power (CMP)
A framework managing knowledge, power, and being, comprising domains such as economy, authority, and epistemology.
Serves as the core structure sustaining coloniality and its global influence across multiple dimensions.
Delinking
The act of separating from Western epistemologies, narratives, and imposed dichotomies.
Represents a necessary step to resist and disrupt coloniality and create new, autonomous modes of existence.
Re-Existence
A process of reclaiming local histories, legacies, and ways of life to establish autonomous identities and practices.
Goes beyond resistance by focusing on rebuilding and affirming modes of living disconnected from colonial frameworks.
Pluriversality
A concept opposing universalism, emphasizing diverse and multiple ways of knowing and existing.
Challenges the imposition of singular truths or systems, promoting a more inclusive, multi-dimensional worldview.
Western Modernity
A historical and ideological project rooted in rationality, universalism, and progress, intertwined with coloniality.
Frames the epistemological and ontological dominance imposed through colonial processes, which decoloniality seeks to dismantle.
Epistemic Disobedience
The rejection of Western knowledge systems and the development of alternative frameworks based on marginalized perspectives.
Encourages the creation of knowledge systems rooted in local and indigenous traditions, rejecting imposed Western hierarchies of knowing.
Indigeneity
Identity and practice tied to original inhabitants of a land, often contrasted with imposed colonial identities.
Central to resisting colonial power and asserting autonomy through cultural and historical affirmation.
Modernity/Coloniality
A dual concept where modernity (progress, rationality) is inseparable from coloniality (exploitation, domination).
Reveals the darker side of modernity as a project that relies on colonial hierarchies and exploitation.
Dewesternization
Efforts by non-Western countries to resist Western influence and assert political, economic, and cultural autonomy.
Highlights geopolitical shifts challenging the dominance of neoliberal globalization and Western-centric systems.
Civil and Epistemic Disobedience
Forms of resistance that involve rejecting established Western norms and knowledge systems in favor of alternative ones.
Provides tools for challenging dominant narratives and reclaiming autonomy in decision-making and knowledge production.
Disobedient Conservatism
The act of preserving cultural, historical, and epistemic legacies that challenge colonial impositions.
Serves as a strategy to protect and revitalize local traditions and knowledge systems within the decolonial project.
Geopolitics of Knowledge
The recognition that knowledge production is influenced by geographic and cultural positions, often dominated by the West.
Challenges the notion of universal knowledge by asserting the importance of local and marginalized perspectives.
Aesthesis
A form of sensing and experiencing the world beyond rationality, emphasizing emotion and embodiment in knowledge.
Contrasts with Western rationalism, offering a decolonial way of perceiving and understanding reality.
Contribution of “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo to Literary Theory/Theories
Critique of Modernity/Coloniality Duality: Mignolo extends postcolonial discourse by demonstrating how modernity and coloniality are inseparable. He challenges the idea of modernity as purely progressive, emphasizing its reliance on colonial exploitation and epistemic domination (p. 39).
Relevance: Deepens the understanding of colonial legacies in literary texts, especially in analyzing how narratives of progress often conceal histories of exploitation.
Reference: “Modernity and coloniality are two sides of the same coin; the former could not exist without the latter” (p. 40).
Pluriversality as a Framework: Mignolo advocates for pluriversality instead of universality in interpreting literature and culture, enabling the recognition of diverse voices and perspectives marginalized by Western-centric frameworks (p. 44).
Relevance: Encourages the inclusion of non-Western epistemologies and narratives in literary analysis, challenging Eurocentric literary canons.
Reference: “Decoloniality operates on pluri-versality and truth and not in uni-versality and truth” (p. 44).
Epistemic Foundations of Racism: Mignolo highlights how colonial epistemologies created racial hierarchies that persist in literature and cultural representations (p. 41).
Relevance: Offers tools for analyzing racialized characters and themes, revealing how literature often perpetuates or resists epistemic racism.
Reference: “Racism is created by an epistemic classification, not by the representation of existing racial differences between human beings” (p. 41).
4. Feminist and Intersectional Theories
Geopolitics of the Body: The essay integrates insights from figures like Gloria Anzaldúa, emphasizing how coloniality intersects with gender, race, and sexuality (p. 43).
Relevance: Enriches feminist literary theory by focusing on the experiences of marginalized bodies, particularly in texts addressing race, gender, and colonial legacies.
Reference: “The geopolitics of racialized and sexualized bodies operates in the borderlines of Western epistemology” (p. 43).
Deconstruction of Dichotomies: Mignolo deconstructs Western epistemological binaries (e.g., knower/known, subject/object), calling for a more fluid understanding of identity and knowledge (p. 43).
Relevance: Aligns with poststructuralist approaches to destabilize fixed categories in literary texts, opening space for alternative interpretations.
Reference: “Decolonial thinking strives to delink itself from the imposed dichotomies articulated in the West” (p. 43).
Delinking and Relinking: The essay’s emphasis on delinking from Western narratives and relinking with local histories contributes to cultural studies by advocating for the recovery of suppressed traditions (p. 44).
Relevance: Encourages cultural studies scholars to examine how literature and media can foster cultural resilience against colonial legacies.
Reference: “Delinking from modernity/coloniality allows us to relink with the legacies we want to preserve” (p. 44).
7. Indigenous Studies
Prioritization of Indigeneity: Mignolo centers indigeneity as a vital framework for resistance, critiquing the Western imposition of identities (p. 43).
Relevance: Offers theoretical tools to analyze indigenous literature, focusing on how it resists colonial erasure and asserts alternative epistemologies.
Reference: “The act of rebuilding indigeneity implies decolonial delinking from settlers’ control of lives” (p. 43).
Examples of Critiques Through “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo
Literary Work
Critique Through Mignolo’s Framework
Key Concepts from Mignolo
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899)
– Exposes the coloniality of knowledge in the narrative, which frames Africa as a space of darkness and Europeans as bearers of civilization.
– Colonial Matrix of Power: The text reinforces the Western civilizing mission while dehumanizing African spaces (p. 39).
– Challenges the binary of “civilized vs. savage,” delinking from the Eurocentric gaze.
– Delinking and Relinking: Calls for a re-reading that centers African perspectives and critiques the imposed colonial framework (p. 44).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958)
– Highlights how the novel delinks from colonial narratives by centering Igbo culture and its disruption by colonial forces.
– Re-Existence: Achebe’s work exemplifies how local histories and legacies challenge colonial erasure (p. 44).
– Critiques Western universalism by presenting a complex, autonomous Igbo society prior to colonial intervention.
– Pluriversality: The novel rejects Eurocentric universality, advocating for the acknowledgment of multiple epistemologies (p. 44).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved (1987)
– Examines the novel’s critique of racialized bodies and the dehumanizing legacy of slavery as a facet of the CMP.
– Geopolitics of the Body: Morrison’s focus on the physical and emotional trauma of enslavement reflects the racialization of bodies (p. 43).
– Highlights Morrison’s use of memory and history to delink from colonial narratives that erased the humanity of enslaved peoples.
– Epistemic Disobedience: The novel reclaims the narrative agency of enslaved individuals, resisting colonial epistemologies (p. 43).
Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera (1987)
– Explores the text’s emphasis on hybridity and the border as a site of resistance against colonial definitions of identity.
– Analyzes Anzaldúa’s call for epistemic disobedience by reclaiming indigenous and feminist ways of knowing.
– Delinking: Challenges imposed dichotomies of race, gender, and sexuality to propose alternative modes of existence (p. 43).
Criticism Against “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo
1. Overgeneralization of Western Modernity
Mignolo’s critique often treats “Western modernity” as a monolithic entity, overlooking its internal diversity and contradictions.
Critics argue that by framing all aspects of modernity as tied to coloniality, he neglects alternative modernities and progressive movements within the West.
2. Ambiguity in Pluriversality
While Mignolo champions “pluriversality,” some critics contend that the concept lacks clarity in implementation, especially regarding how to balance diverse, conflicting perspectives without creating new hierarchies.
The idea of “pluriversality” may seem utopian and difficult to operationalize in practical or institutional settings.
3. Neglect of Material and Structural Challenges
Critics point out that Mignolo emphasizes epistemic and cultural delinking but provides limited guidance on addressing the material and structural inequalities perpetuated by coloniality.
The framework risks becoming overly theoretical, failing to engage with the economic and political dimensions of decolonial struggles.
4. Reliance on Dichotomies
Mignolo critiques Western dichotomies (e.g., subject/object, knower/known) but arguably creates new binaries, such as Western/Non-Western and modernity/decoloniality, which may oversimplify complex relationships.
This reliance on oppositional framing may undermine the nuanced, intersectional approach required for analyzing global colonial dynamics.
5. Limited Engagement with Indigenous and Local Specificities
Although Mignolo draws on indigeneity as a central concept, critics argue that his approach risks universalizing decoloniality, potentially overshadowing specific indigenous voices and contexts.
His external perspective as a scholar analyzing indigeneity may inadvertently perpetuate a hierarchical relationship.
6. Insufficient Attention to Global Interconnections
Some critics claim that Mignolo’s focus on delinking may underestimate the extent to which global interdependence, including collaborations across cultures, can be transformative rather than purely oppressive.
The call to delink may be impractical in a deeply interconnected global system where engagement and negotiation are necessary.
7. Lack of Concrete Strategies
Mignolo’s theoretical propositions, such as delinking and re-existing, are criticized for being abstract, leaving readers with limited actionable steps for implementing decoloniality.
Critics seek more detailed methodologies or practical frameworks to accompany his philosophical ideas.
Representative Quotations from “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo with Explanation
“The Colonial Matrix of Power controls and touches upon all aspects and trajectories of our lives.” (p. 39)
This highlights the pervasive influence of coloniality across social, political, cultural, and economic domains, serving as the backbone of modern global power structures.
“Modernity and coloniality are two sides of the same coin; the former could not exist without the latter.” (p. 40)
Mignolo critiques the narrative of modernity as progress, revealing its reliance on colonial exploitation and epistemic domination, a central theme in decolonial thought.
“Decoloniality operates on pluri-versality and truth and not in uni-versality and truth.” (p. 44)
He emphasizes the need for diverse perspectives and the rejection of universalist claims, advocating for a world in which multiple epistemologies coexist.
“Re-existing is something other than resisting. If you resist, you are trapped in the rules of the game others created.” (p. 44)
Mignolo differentiates between mere opposition to coloniality and the active creation of autonomous frameworks for living, emphasizing the transformative power of re-existence.
“Decolonial thinking strives to delink itself from the imposed dichotomies articulated in the West, namely the knower and the known, the subject and the object.” (p. 43)
He critiques the epistemological binaries of Western thought, calling for alternative frameworks that value local knowledge and lived experiences.
“Indigeneity is an indigenous identity particular to an individual who sees him/herself as belonging to a specific group with roots dating prior to 1492.” (p. 44)
This situates indigeneity as a central concept in resistance against colonial frameworks, emphasizing historical continuity and cultural affirmation.
“The global westernizing project collapsed at the beginning of the twenty-first century… People begin to re-exist.” (p. 40)
He identifies a shift away from Western dominance, marking the rise of decolonial and de-westernization projects globally, reflecting broader geopolitical changes.
“What is relevant is an understanding of the trust of diverse projects around the world that are not initiated by the state, corporations, or banks.” (p. 44)
Mignolo underscores the grassroots nature of decolonial projects, emphasizing their independence from dominant global institutions and their localized, community-driven character.
“Racism is created by an epistemic classification, not by the representation of existing racial differences between human beings.” (p. 41)
This reveals how colonial epistemologies constructed racial categories to sustain hierarchical systems of power, offering a critical lens for analyzing racism in literature and history.
“There cannot be one and only one decolonial master plan—it would be far too modern, too Eurocentric, too provincial, too limited and still too universal.” (p. 44)
He rejects the imposition of a singular decolonial approach, advocating for flexible and context-specific strategies that honor the diversity of local histories and needs.
Suggested Readings: “Coloniality Is Far from Over, and So Must Be Decoloniality” by Walter D. Mignolo
Mignolo, Walter D. “Coloniality is far from over, and so must be decoloniality.” Afterall: A journal of art, context and enquiry 43.1 (2017): 38-45.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Wanda Nanibush. “Thinking and Engaging with the Decolonial: A Conversation Between Walter D. Mignolo and Wanda Nanibush.” Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry, vol. 45, 2018, pp. 24–29. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26558001. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
Mignolo, Walter D. “Decoloniality and Phenomenology: The Geopolitics of Knowing and Epistemic/Ontological Colonial Differences.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 32, no. 3, 2018, pp. 360–87. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.32.3.0360. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
MIGNOLO, WALTER D., and CATHERINE E. WALSH. “The Conceptual Triad: Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality.” On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis, Duke University Press, 2018, pp. 135–52. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11g9616.11. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.
“Literary Theory and Literary Aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen first appeared in the book “The End of Literary Theory” and explores fundamental philosophical questions concerning the nature and understanding of literature as a practice.
Introduction: “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
“Literary Theory and Literary Aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen first appeared in the book “The End of Literary Theory” and explores fundamental philosophical questions concerning the nature and understanding of literature as a practice. Olsen’s approach centers on the concept of literature as an institutional practice, governed by constitutive rules that shape its identity and appreciation. Rejecting systematic literary theories, he argues that these often rely on unwarranted assumptions, leading to epistemological confusion. Olsen posits that literature, unlike texts in general, cannot be reduced to textual features alone; instead, its identity is contingent on the conventions of appreciation and interpretation inherent in the literary institution. A pivotal idea is his assertion that “the proper object of discussion for the philosopher interested in literature is the act of appreciation itself: the conventions and concepts that define the mode of apprehension necessary to operate a concept of and to appreciate a literary work.” This perspective underscores literature’s unique status as an evaluative concept, defying reductive theoretical frameworks, and affirming the essential role of value in literary aesthetics.
Summary of “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
Literary Aesthetics as a Philosophical Inquiry Olsen defines literary aesthetics as the study of philosophical problems surrounding the appreciation, evaluation, and understanding of literature, focusing on aspects such as aesthetic perception, judgment, authorial intention, truth, and fiction. Unlike systematic theories, which are criticized for unwarranted assumptions, Olsen’s essays embrace a consistent philosophical perspective (Olsen, p. 196).
Literature as an Institutional Practice Central to Olsen’s argument is the notion of literature as an institutional practice. Institutions are defined by constitutive rules that not only regulate practices but also create and identify the objects or actions they govern. Literary works derive meaning through these institutional conventions, emphasizing the role of authorial intention and reader-response over textual features (Olsen, pp. 196-197).
The Limitations of Systematic Theories Olsen critiques systematic literary theories for their reductive focus on textual features and their failure to address the evaluative aspects of literature. He argues that literary works cannot be analyzed independently of the institutional conventions that shape their interpretation (Olsen, p. 197).
The Role of Appreciation in Literary Aesthetics Appreciation is identified as the proper focus of literary aesthetics. Olsen suggests that understanding a literary work requires engaging with the conventions and concepts that define its institutional role, positioning appreciation as a foundational aspect of interpretation (Olsen, p. 197).
Rejecting Reductionism in Literature Olsen opposes the reduction of literature to textual or structural analysis. He highlights the non-reductive nature of the institutional perspective, which preserves the concept of literature as an art form and resists the reductive tendencies of modern critical theory (Olsen, p. 198).
Criticism of Alternative Theoretical Frameworks Olsen critiques frameworks like New Criticism, which focused on text-centered analysis, for their dismissal of authorial intention and reliance on rigid principles. He also critiques metacriticism, which seeks to derive normative principles from critical practices, as inherently flawed and contradictory (Olsen, pp. 199-200).
Distinction Between Literary Aesthetics and Literary Theory Olsen differentiates literary aesthetics from literary theory. While aesthetics addresses philosophical issues in literature, literary theory often imposes metaphysical assumptions and theoretical frameworks that claim privileged insight but may obscure literary appreciation (Olsen, p. 202).
Deconstruction as Post-Theoretical Critique Deconstruction, as discussed by Olsen, represents a reaction to the rigidity of structuralist frameworks. While it challenges notions of unitary meaning and the concept of literature itself, Olsen argues that it ultimately perpetuates the structuralist metaphysical premise, reducing its relevance to aesthetic discussions (Olsen, pp. 205-206).
The Irreducibility of Literary Works Olsen concludes that literary works are irreducible entities whose features are understood only in appreciation. Attempts to define literature through textual features or to develop general textual theories fail to account for the evaluative and institutional dimensions of literature (Olsen, p. 209).
Implications for Literary Theory and Value Olsen emphasizes that “literature” is a value concept, central to its understanding. He asserts that literary theory’s inability to integrate value into its frameworks renders it both unnecessary and undesirable, underscoring the need for literary aesthetics to address value directly (Olsen, p. 211).
Key Quotation
“The proper object of discussion for the philosopher interested in literature is the act of appreciation itself: the conventions and concepts that define the mode of apprehension necessary to operate a concept of and to appreciate a literary work” (Olsen, p. 197). This statement encapsulates Olsen’s institutional perspective, highlighting the importance of appreciation over reductive textual analysis in understanding literature.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
Term/Concept
Definition/Description
Significance
Literary Aesthetics
Philosophical inquiry into the appreciation, understanding, and evaluation of literary works.
Focuses on the conventions and institutional aspects of literature rather than systematic theoretical approaches.
Institutional Practice
A practice defined by constitutive rules that regulate and create the possibility for identifying objects and actions within it.
Central to understanding literature as an entity shaped by conventions rather than inherent textual properties.
Constitutive Rules
Rules that define and regulate practices, enabling the identification of institutional objects and actions.
Provide the framework for understanding literature as a practice and for identifying literary works.
Authorial Intention
The intentions and purposes of the author in creating a literary work.
An essential component of the institutional view, linking the literary work to the author-reader relationship.
A post-structuralist critique focusing on the contradictions and aporias within texts.
Positioned as a reaction to structuralism but critiqued for perpetuating its metaphysical premises.
Value Concept
The notion that literature is inherently tied to value judgments.
Central to Olsen’s argument, emphasizing the evaluative aspect of literature over reductive theoretical approaches.
Aesthetic Property
Qualities of a literary work recognized through appreciation and institutional conventions.
Underscores the non-reductive approach to defining literature.
Textual Theory
Theories focused on analyzing texts independent of their institutional or functional contexts.
Critiqued as reductive and insufficient for understanding literary works as institutional entities.
Function-Category
The intended purpose or category of a text within its institutional framework.
Determines the interpretive approach and features recognized in a work.
Epistemological Primacy
The claim that a particular theoretical framework offers the most fundamental understanding of literature.
Associated with literary theory’s reductive and authoritarian tendencies, critiqued by Olsen.
Contribution of “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen to Literary Theory/Theories
Critique of Systematic Literary Theories Olsen argues that systematic literary theories often rely on unwarranted epistemological and logical assumptions. These theories fail to address the institutional and evaluative aspects of literature, making them obstacles rather than aids in understanding the phenomenon of literature (p. 196).
Institutional Perspective as an Alternative Framework By positioning literature as an institutional practice, Olsen introduces a framework based on constitutive rules that define and regulate the production and appreciation of literary works. This institutional approach challenges atomistic views that focus solely on textual properties (pp. 196-197).
Reevaluation of Authorial Intention and Reader-Response Olsen reasserts the importance of authorial intention and reader-response within the institutional framework. He critiques theories like New Criticism for dismissing these components and argues that the identity of a literary work is tied to the transaction between author and reader (p. 197).
Opposition to Reductionism in Literary Theory The institutional perspective rejects the reduction of literature to textual or structural features. Olsen critiques frameworks like structuralism and textual theory for neglecting the evaluative and aesthetic aspects central to literature (p. 198).
Challenge to Metacriticism and Normative Theories Olsen critiques metacriticism, particularly as practiced by New Criticism, for attempting to derive universal principles from specific critical practices. He argues this approach is flawed, as it conflates descriptive analysis with normative claims (pp. 199-200).
Insights into Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism While acknowledging deconstruction’s critique of structuralism, Olsen critiques its reliance on structuralist metaphysical premises. He positions deconstruction as a reaction to structuralism that ultimately fails to provide a coherent theory of literature (pp. 205-206).
Emphasis on Literary Value as Central to Theory Olsen highlights the concept of “literature” as inherently tied to value. He critiques literary theory for failing to integrate literary value into its frameworks, positioning literary aesthetics as better suited to address this evaluative dimension (p. 211).
Criticism of Theoretical Imperialism Olsen critiques the authoritarian nature of literary theory, particularly its tendency to privilege certain theoretical frameworks as universal truths. He argues this creates ideological struggles and neglects the plurality of literary practices (p. 202).
Non-Reductive Definition of Aesthetic Properties The institutional perspective provides a non-reductive approach to defining aesthetic properties, emphasizing appreciation and institutional conventions over textual or structural analysis (p. 197).
Impact on the Concept of Textual Theory Olsen critiques textual theory for failing to account for the institutional context of texts, reducing them to features that are often irrelevant to their literary function. He positions this as a major limitation in deconstruction and similar approaches (pp. 209-210).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
Literary Work
Critique Based on Olsen’s Theories
Key Reference from the Article
William Golding’s The Pyramid
Olsen critiques the reduction of the opening scene to mere textual features, instead contextualizing it within the institutional conventions of literature. He interprets Oliver’s descent to Evie as a metaphorical fall, emphasizing the evaluative role of appreciation (p. 208).
“The scene is recognized as a literary aesthetic feature of the novel through thematization and contextualization” (p. 208).
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet
Olsen contrasts the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet with its parody in The Pyramid. He highlights how institutional conventions like allusion and metaphor shape the literary appreciation of both texts (p. 208).
“This scene parodies and inverts the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet… Romeo hails Juliet as ‘celestial’; Oliver looks down to Evie” (p. 208).
New Criticism on Hamlet
Olsen critiques New Criticism’s text-centric analysis of Hamlet for ignoring authorial intention and reader-response. He references Morris Weitz’s study, which demonstrates the multiplicity of critical principles applied to Hamlet (p. 199).
“Criticism of Hamlet, Weitz argued, rests on a varied menu of principles… a menu which cannot be reduced to one set of consistent principles” (p. 199).
Modern Post-Structuralist Readings
Post-structuralist readings are critiqued for their focus on textual contradictions and neglect of institutional and evaluative aspects. Olsen uses deconstruction’s analysis of rhetorical features to demonstrate this limitation (pp. 205-206).
“Deconstruction uses premises on which it rests to deny the presence of a unitary meaning… and, indeed, the validity of the concept of literature” (p. 206).
Criticism Against “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
Limited Applicability of the Institutional Perspective Critics argue that Olsen’s reliance on the institutional framework may not adequately address literary works that exist outside traditional institutional conventions or are intended to challenge such structures.
Underestimation of Systematic Theories While Olsen critiques systematic theories for their epistemological assumptions, some scholars contend that such frameworks provide valuable tools for consistent and comparative analysis of diverse texts.
Overemphasis on Appreciation The centrality of appreciation in Olsen’s framework has been criticized for being subjective, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations and a lack of methodological rigor.
Neglect of Socio-Political Dimensions Critics note that Olsen’s institutional focus sidelines the socio-political and cultural dimensions often addressed by Marxist, feminist, or post-colonial theories, limiting the scope of his approach.
Dismissal of Post-Structuralism and Deconstruction Olsen’s critique of deconstruction as reductive and reliant on structuralist premises has been contested, with some arguing that deconstruction offers unique insights into textual ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning.
Resistance to Interdisciplinary Approaches By emphasizing the specificity of literary aesthetics, Olsen’s framework is seen as resistant to interdisciplinary methodologies that integrate literature with psychology, sociology, or cultural studies.
Risk of Overgeneralization in Institutional Rules The notion of constitutive rules governing literature has been criticized for potentially oversimplifying the diverse practices and conventions across cultures and historical periods.
Potential for Elitism in the Concept of Value Olsen’s focus on literary value has been interpreted as privileging certain canonical works, possibly marginalizing non-canonical or popular forms of literature.
Critique of the Rejection of Metacriticism The dismissal of metacriticism has been challenged by those who believe it offers a vital way to analyze the coherence and validity of critical practices.
Lack of Engagement with Reader Diversity The institutional perspective’s focus on authorial intention and literary conventions may underplay the diverse ways readers from different cultural or social backgrounds engage with literature.
Representative Quotations from “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen with Explanation
“A philosophical discussion of basic problems of the understanding and appreciation of literary works is essential to literary aesthetics.”
This highlights the foundational focus of literary aesthetics on understanding and appreciation, distinguishing it from other theoretical frameworks.
“The literary work is therefore logically tied to the author/reader relationship and can only be understood as a transaction between these two institutional roles.”
Stresses the interdependence between the author’s intention and the reader’s response within the institutional framework of literature.
“An institution or a practice is defined by a set of constitutive rules, which not only regulate the practice but also create the possibility for identifying the objects or actions they regulate.”
Explains that institutions such as literature are governed by rules that enable recognition and categorization of literary works.
“Literary theory…is authoritarian in a way that theories of the natural sciences are not.”
Critiques the ideological and prescriptive nature of literary theory, contrasting it with the perceived objectivity and universality of scientific theories.
“The features of a literary work that define it as a literary work can be recognized only in appreciation of a work.”
Argues that the defining characteristics of literature emerge from the act of appreciation, rather than being inherent in the text itself.
“The institutional perspective offers the possibility of a definition of ‘aesthetic property’ which does not involve reference to independently identifiable textual features.”
Suggests that aesthetic properties are rooted in conventions and institutional contexts, not isolated textual analysis.
“Deconstruction…stays well within the structuralist semantic conceptual framework.”
Points out that deconstruction, despite claiming to diverge, remains rooted in structuralist assumptions about language and meaning.
“A text is always a text of some kind: a literary work, a philosophical treatise, or article…The concept of ‘text’ is logically secondary to the concept of ‘work.’”
Emphasizes the importance of categorizing a text as a specific type of work, as understanding depends on the context and intended function of the text.
“The literary work is an irreducible entity whose literary features are grasped only in appreciation.”
Highlights the idea that literary works cannot be fully understood through reductive theoretical approaches; they require contextual interpretation and appreciation.
“The attempt to substitute the concept of text or discourse for the concept of literature appears as a change of subject rather than as a development in literary aesthetics.”
Critiques the shift in focus from literature to text in contemporary theories, arguing that this undermines the aesthetic essence of literature.
Suggested Readings: “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
Olsen, Stein Haugom. “Literary Theory and Literary Aesthetics.” (1987): 196-211.
Nicholas O. Pagan. “The Evolution of Literary Theory and the Literary Mind.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2013, pp. 157–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.15.2.0157. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Nicholas O. Pagan. “The Evolution of Literary Theory and the Literary Mind.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2013, pp. 157–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.15.2.0157. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
CAHILL, EDWARD, and EDWARD LARKIN. “Aesthetics, Feeling, and Form in Early American Literary Studies.” Early American Literature, vol. 51, no. 2, 2016, pp. 235–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43946747. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
“Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work” by Julian Go first appeared in Sociological Theory, 31(1), 49–74, published by the American Sociological Association in 2013.
Introduction: “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go
“Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work” by Julian Go first appeared in Sociological Theory, 31(1), 49–74, published by the American Sociological Association in 2013. This essay examines Pierre Bourdieu’s early studies of colonial Algeria, arguing against the common perception that Bourdieu neglected colonialism. Go reveals how Bourdieu’s early writings systematically analyzed colonialism as a racialized system of domination, backed by force, and instrumental in shaping hybrid cultures. His work prefigured key theoretical concepts such as habitus, field, and reflexive sociology, situating them within the context of colonialism and offering critical insights into its mechanisms and legacies.
In fact, Go contends that Bourdieu’s critique of colonialism contributes to postcolonial sociology by addressing colonialism’s pervasive cultural and social transformations. He writes, “Colonialism is a system whose internal necessity and logic it is important to understand” (Bourdieu, 1958, as cited in Go, 2013, p. 120). This perspective not only enriches the sociological understanding of colonial contexts but also challenges Eurocentric narratives, advancing a nuanced postcolonial framework. By situating Bourdieu within debates on colonialism and postcolonial studies, Go highlights his contributions to a sociology that interrogates power, domination, and identity formation within colonial systems.
Summary of “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go
Bourdieu’s Early Theorization of Colonialism
Colonialism as a System of Domination: Bourdieu viewed colonialism as a structured, racialized system of domination backed by force. He argued that colonialism reshaped social relations and generated hybrid cultural forms (Go, 2013, p. 52).
Critique of Anthropological Models: He critiqued anthropological studies for ignoring the pervasive influence of colonialism on so-called “pristine” native cultures. Bourdieu stressed that no Algerian community was untouched by colonial conditions (Go, 2013, p. 53).
The Role of Coercion: Bourdieu highlighted that colonialism relied fundamentally on coercion and violence to maintain its structures, making racial hierarchy a legitimizing mechanism for dominance (Go, 2013, p. 56).
Racialization and Identity: Bourdieu’s insights prefigured later postcolonial theorists like Frantz Fanon. However, he uniquely emphasized the interplay of economic, cultural, and coercive forces within colonial systems, diverging from purely psychological or philosophical frameworks (Go, 2013, p. 57).
Hybrid Cultures: Bourdieu argued that colonialism produced “cultural sabir,” a fractured and hybridized identity resulting from the clash of traditional and colonial values (Go, 2013, p. 60). This concept resonates with Homi Bhabha’s notions of hybridity and mimicry but grounds them in sociological conditions.
Reflections on Revolutionary Movements
Ambivalence Toward Anticolonial Revolution: While supporting Algerian independence, Bourdieu critiqued the romanticization of revolutionary movements, particularly by figures like Fanon. He argued that colonial disruption left behind a habitus of contradiction, complicating postcolonial liberation (Go, 2013, p. 63).
Dependency and Hostility in Colonial Relations: Bourdieu identified a paradox where colonized individuals, while dependent on the colonizers, developed hostility toward them. This tension was a source of both individual identity struggles and broader revolutionary upheaval (Go, 2013, p. 58).
Influence on Bourdieu’s Later Concepts
Foundations of Habitus: Bourdieu’s analysis of colonial culture anticipated his later concept of habitus, capturing how colonial disruptions left durable yet adaptable dispositions among the colonized (Go, 2013, p. 62).
Colonialism as a “Field”: Bourdieu’s framing of colonialism as a relational and structured system aligns with his later field theory, emphasizing power dynamics and positional struggles within systems (Go, 2013, p. 64).
Reflexivity in Colonial Ethnography: Bourdieu’s critical stance on the complicity of colonial ethnography with imperial power informed his call for reflexive sociology, which interrogates the conditions under which sociological knowledge is produced (Go, 2013, p. 66).
Contributions to Postcolonial Sociology
Alignment with Southern Theory: Bourdieu’s work critiques Eurocentric paradigms and aligns with “southern theory,” focusing on the lived experiences of dominated peoples. His analysis of colonialism prefigures critiques of imperialism in global sociology (Go, 2013, p. 68).
Insights for Postcolonial Thought: Bourdieu’s theories on colonialism, identity, and hybridity offer valuable contributions to postcolonial studies. His work challenges both modernization theories and Marxist reductionism, emphasizing the sociocultural dimensions of colonial power (Go, 2013, p. 69).
Conclusion
Julian Go argues that Bourdieu’s early work on Algeria, often overshadowed by his later theoretical contributions, provides a rich framework for understanding colonialism as a racialized, coercive, and culturally transformative system. It also anticipates central concerns of postcolonial sociology and offers tools for critiquing Eurocentric social theory.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go
Theoretical Term/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Context/Significance
Colonial Situation
A structured system of domination involving economic, cultural, and racial hierarchies imposed by colonialism.
Central to Bourdieu’s critique of anthropology and modernization theories; highlights colonialism’s pervasive impact.
Cultural Sabir
A hybrid cultural form created by the clash of colonial and indigenous systems of meaning and values.
Reflects colonial identity’s fractured and ambivalent nature; prefigures postcolonial theories of hybridity.
Habitus
Durable, transposable dispositions shaped by past experiences and structures.
Initially developed in Bourdieu’s work on Algeria; explains how colonial practices shape long-lasting social behaviors.
Field
A relational, multidimensional social space defined by positions and struggles over power and resources.
Bourdieu’s theorization of colonialism as a relational system aligns with his later formal concept of “field.”
Colonial Interactionism
The idea that colonial structures influence social interactions and identity formation.
Explains micro-level behaviors of colonized and colonizers as shaped by the broader colonial system.
Racialized Domination
A system where racial hierarchies legitimize and sustain colonial rule through coercion and privilege.
Emphasizes race as a key structuring element of colonialism, moving beyond class-centric models.
Economic Transformations
The reorganization of traditional economies under colonial capitalism.
Highlights colonialism’s impact on both material conditions and cultural practices.
Reflexive Sociology
A methodological approach that critically examines the conditions under which sociological knowledge is produced.
Drawn from critiques of colonial ethnography; emphasizes the role of power in shaping research contexts.
Double Consciousness
A split identity experienced by colonized individuals caught between traditional and colonial systems.
Draws parallels with W.E.B. Du Bois’ concept; explains identity conflicts under colonial rule.
Colonial Violence and Coercion
The use of force as a foundational mechanism for maintaining colonial order.
Critiques modernization theories that ignore coercive dimensions of colonialism.
Colonial Reform Limits
The inherent failure of colonial reforms due to the deep structural violence of the colonial system.
Critiques efforts to “civilize” colonized societies while maintaining domination.
Contribution of “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go to Literary Theory/Theories
Intersection of Sociology and Postcolonial Theory Julian Go highlights how Bourdieu’s early work theorizes colonialism as a structured system of domination, addressing power relations that are central to postcolonial theory (Go, 2013, p. 50). This bridges the gap between sociological methodologies and literary analyses of colonialism’s cultural impact.
Critique of Eurocentrism in Theoretical Frameworks The article positions Bourdieu’s critiques of colonial anthropology and modernization theory as an early move toward decolonizing knowledge production (Go, 2013, p. 52). This critique parallels Edward Said’s Orientalism in challenging Western-centric perspectives in literary studies.
Introduction of the “Colonial Situation” as a Literary Concept Bourdieu’s notion of the “colonial situation” as a system of racial, economic, and cultural domination enriches the theoretical toolkit for analyzing colonial narratives and hybrid identities in literature (Go, 2013, p. 56).
Foundation for Analyzing Hybrid Identities The concept of “cultural sabir,” developed from Bourdieu’s studies, contributes to theories of hybridity and mimicry, echoing Homi Bhabha’s work on ambivalence and identity in colonial contexts (Go, 2013, p. 58).
Emphasis on Power Relations in Knowledge Production Go underlines Bourdieu’s reflexive critique of colonial ethnography, offering a framework for analyzing how literature perpetuates or resists hegemonic power dynamics (Go, 2013, p. 65).
Contribution to Postcolonial Theories of Resistance Bourdieu’s exploration of colonial violence and its role in producing revolutionary consciousness resonates with Frantz Fanon’s discussions of resistance in The Wretched of the Earth (Go, 2013, p. 59).
Prefiguration of Postcolonial Theories of Hybridity Go positions Bourdieu’s analysis of fractured colonial identities as an antecedent to postcolonial literary theory’s engagement with fragmented subjectivities (Go, 2013, p. 62).
Development of Reflexive Methodologies for Literary Analysis Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology, as discussed by Go, informs methodologies that critically assess the positionality of both the author and the critic in literary studies (Go, 2013, p. 66).
Broadening the Scope of Postcolonial Literary Studies By recovering Bourdieu’s critique of colonialism, Go situates his work within the tradition of postcolonial theory, encouraging the integration of sociological insights into literary analyses of colonial and postcolonial texts (Go, 2013, p. 67).
Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go
Literary Work
Key Theme
Critique Using Bourdieu’s Theories
Reference from Go (2013)
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
Colonial Exploitation
Critiques the racialized system of domination portrayed in the Congo, framing it as a “colonial situation” where racial privilege and coercion structure social relations.
Go emphasizes Bourdieu’s view of colonialism as a system rooted in coercion and racial hierarchy (p. 56).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart
Cultural Disintegration
Highlights how colonial economic and cultural transformations disrupt traditional social systems, creating hybrid identities and fractured cultures, akin to Bourdieu’s concept of “cultural sabir.”
Go discusses how Bourdieu critiques modernization theory for failing to account for the disintegration caused by colonial forces (p. 59).
Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth
Anti-Colonial Revolution
Frames the violence of colonialism as the basis for revolutionary consciousness, aligning with Fanon but critiquing the romanticization of revolution by emphasizing the persistence of colonial structures in postcolonial societies.
Go links Bourdieu’s critique of Sartre and Fanon’s romanticism of peasant revolution with his view of colonialism’s structural persistence (p. 62).
Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea
Postcolonial Identity and Hybridity
Applies Bourdieu’s concept of “cultural sabir” to analyze the protagonist’s hybrid identity and fractured subjectivity within the colonial structure, highlighting the ambivalence and alienation experienced by colonized individuals.
Go’s discussion of fractured identities under colonialism informs an analysis of cultural duality in Rhys’s work (p. 61).
Criticism Against “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go
Limited Engagement with Bourdieu’s Later Works While Go focuses on Bourdieu’s early works in Algeria, critics might argue that he underrepresents the evolution of Bourdieu’s ideas in his later career, which could provide additional insights or counterpoints to the early colonial critiques.
Overemphasis on French Colonial Context The analysis is heavily centered on the French-Algerian colonial experience, potentially neglecting how Bourdieu’s theories might apply or fail to apply to colonial situations in different global contexts.
Romanticization of Bourdieu’s Reflexivity Critics might contend that Go overstates the reflexive nature of Bourdieu’s work on colonialism without adequately addressing how Bourdieu’s position as a French intellectual limited his critical distance from colonial ideologies.
Lack of Engagement with Non-Western Thinkers The article’s focus on Bourdieu and French intellectuals risks sidelining or marginalizing contributions from non-Western thinkers in postcolonial and anti-colonial theory, such as Fanon or Césaire, who might offer richer or more direct critiques of colonialism.
Ambiguity in Defining “Decolonization” Go’s article does not fully address whether Bourdieu’s early critique effectively supports decolonization in practice or merely theorizes it abstractly, leaving ambiguity about the practical implications of Bourdieu’s ideas.
Selective Critique of Postcolonial Scholars Go’s discussion of postcolonial scholars like Edward Said could be viewed as selective, as it critiques their reading of Bourdieu without fully engaging with the broader corpus of postcolonial theory.
Underdeveloped Links to Global Sociology While Go argues for incorporating Bourdieu into postcolonial sociology, critics may note that the article does not sufficiently articulate how this incorporation advances global or “southern” sociology beyond theoretical abstraction.
Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go with Explanation
Quotation
Explanation
“Bourdieu’s early work, rather than just on Algeria itself or the Algerian revolution, was also about colonial rule, racial domination, and colonial cultures.”
Highlights Bourdieu’s engagement with colonialism as a systemic and cultural force, challenging interpretations that limit his work to ethnographic observations of Algerian society. It underscores his contributions to theorizing colonialism as a structure with profound social and cultural impacts.
“Colonialism is a system in its own right. He claims that ‘the colonial society is a system whose internal necessity and logic it is important to understand.’”
Reflects Bourdieu’s framing of colonialism as a distinct social system with inherent structures, not just an external imposition. This systemic perspective moves beyond cultural or psychological interpretations to analyze colonialism’s embedded logics of domination and power.
“The function of racism is none other than to provide a rationalization of the existing state of affairs so as to make it appear to be a lawfully instituted order.”
Demonstrates Bourdieu’s analysis of racism as an ideological tool that legitimizes the colonial power structure, revealing its role in maintaining and perpetuating systemic inequality and exploitation within colonial societies.
“There never existed in Algeria a truly isolated community, completely untouched by the colonial situation.”
Challenges anthropological assumptions about “pristine” native societies, emphasizing how colonialism profoundly alters even supposedly isolated communities, disrupting their social and cultural frameworks.
“Bourdieu’s sociology of colonialism is rooted in so-called objective analysis rather than a psychology, philosophy, or political tract.”
Differentiates Bourdieu’s methodological approach from contemporaneous thinkers like Fanon, showing his focus on sociological structures and empirical analysis rather than psychological or philosophical interpretations of colonialism.
“The colonial system can function properly if the dominated society is willing to assume the very negative nature or ‘essence’ that the dominating society holds up for it as its destiny.”
Explains how colonial systems depend on creating and reinforcing stereotypes about the colonized, which the colonized may internalize, perpetuating their subjugation within the colonial order.
“The war for independence exposed ‘the true basis for the colonial order: the relation, backed by force, which allows for the dominant caste to keep the dominated caste in a position of inferiority.’”
Explores how the violence and coercion at the heart of colonial rule were laid bare during Algeria’s fight for independence, challenging narratives that frame colonialism as a benign or civilizing mission.
“Revolution may be a necessary outcome of colonialism, but the sort of revolutionary consciousness presumed by Fanon or Sartre to be present among the colonized is not.”
Critiques romanticized notions of revolutionary consciousness, arguing instead that colonialism produces fractured identities and ambivalence, complicating simplistic models of anticolonial revolution.
“The colonial situation thus creates the ‘contemptible’ person at the same time that it creates the contemptuous attitude.”
Highlights the dual dynamic of colonialism: it dehumanizes the colonized while fostering a sense of superiority among the colonizers, perpetuating a cycle of domination and resistance.
“Culture is fractured and incomplete. The colonized do not become ‘modernized’ or ‘acculturated’ but are ‘condemned . . . to the interferences and incoherences that make a cultural sabir.’”
Rejects modernization theory’s simplistic linearity, emphasizing instead the fragmented and hybridized cultural realities produced by colonialism. The term “cultural sabir” captures this chaotic mixture of traditional and imposed elements.
Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work ” by Julian Go
Capan, Zeynep Gulsah. “Decolonising International Relations?” Third World Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26156094. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Curto, Roxanna. “Bourdieu and Fanon on Algeria.” Bourdieu and Postcolonial Studies, edited by RAPHAEL DALLEO, Liverpool University Press, 2016, pp. 102–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gn6c51.8. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
“Colonialism/Imperialism” by Cóilín Parsons first appeared in The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory (2010), edited by Michael Ryan.
Introduction: “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons
“Colonialism/Imperialism” by Cóilín Parsons first appeared in The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory (2010), edited by Michael Ryan. This seminal work explores the intertwined yet distinct concepts of colonialism and imperialism, emphasizing their historical, political, and cultural dimensions. Parsons traces the origins of colonial practices from antiquity to the expansion of European powers, highlighting their role in shaping modern capitalism and global power dynamics. He argues that colonialism primarily involves settlement and cultural transplantation, while imperialism focuses on the domination and exploitation of territories without significant settlement. The article’s importance in literature and literary theory lies in its elucidation of these terms within the broader framework of postcolonial studies, engaging with thinkers like Edward Said and Frantz Fanon. Parsons underscores the ideological underpinnings of colonialism, rooted in racial hierarchies and a “civilizing mission,” noting, “While the primary purpose of colonization was trade and settlement, transposing European cultural values onto foreign territories came to be seen as a central plank of the practice.” This work remains crucial for understanding the legacy of colonial and imperial practices in shaping contemporary global and cultural relations.
Summary of “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons
Definitions and Historical Context Colonialism and imperialism are interrelated but distinct concepts, both describing the domination of one group over another. Parsons situates their modern understanding in the context of European expansion beginning in the sixteenth century, tied to the rise of capitalism and the establishment of global economic systems (Parsons, 2010).
Colonial Practices Early forms of colonization, such as Greek and Roman settlements, were characterized by peripheral population centers maintaining close ties with their metropolitan centers. Modern colonialism evolved during European explorations, driven by the need for resources and trade. Early modern examples, such as British colonies in North America, demonstrate the transplantation of European cultural and economic systems (Parsons, 2010).
Settler vs. Administered Colonies Parsons distinguishes between settler colonies, like those in North America and Australia, where colonists displaced indigenous populations, and administered colonies, such as India, focused on resource extraction. The “Scramble for Africa” epitomized the imperialist phase of European expansion, where the focus shifted to exploitation without significant settlement (Parsons, 2010).
Imperialism as an Economic System Imperialism is presented as an evolution of capitalism. Lenin’s analysis of imperialism as “the monopoly stage of capitalism” highlights the competition among industrial powers for global dominance. Unlike colonialism, imperialism does not necessarily involve settlement but relies on financial and military control to exploit resources (Lenin, 1917, as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Colonial Ideology and Racism European colonialism was often justified through ideologies of racial superiority and a “civilizing mission.” Edward Said’s Orientalism (1991) highlights how cultural domination became integral to colonial practices, with nations like France adopting assimilationist ideologies and others like Britain preferring looser associations with colonies (Parsons, 2010).
Anticolonial Movements Anticolonial efforts spanned centuries, from the American Revolution to India’s independence. These movements were diverse, involving legislative and violent means. Pan-Africanism, for example, unified the struggles of Africans and the diaspora under a shared history and vision for the future (Parsons, 2010).
Neocolonialism and Globalization Despite formal decolonization, the economic and political domination of former colonies persists under neocolonialism. Kwame Nkrumah defines neocolonialism as the outward appearance of sovereignty with continued external control, a phenomenon exacerbated by globalization and capitalist expansion (Nkrumah, 1965, as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Contemporary Relevance Parsons emphasizes the ongoing importance of understanding colonialism and imperialism in analyzing global inequalities and cultural hegemonies. The frameworks developed by thinkers like Hobson, Lenin, and Said remain essential for critiquing modern systems of power and exploitation (Parsons, 2010).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons
Term/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Reference/Explanation from the Article
Colonialism
The practice of establishing settlements (colonies) by one group in a distant territory, involving the economic and cultural domination of the indigenous population.
Rooted in the economic expansion of European powers, it involves imposing metropolitan control over peripheral territories (Parsons, 2010).
Imperialism
The broader concept of extending a nation’s influence through political, economic, and cultural domination, often without direct settlement.
Defined as “the practice, theory, and attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory” (Said, 1991; as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Settler Colonies
Colonies where settlers displace indigenous populations and establish a majority presence.
Examples include North America and Australia, where the colonial population came to outnumber the native peoples (Parsons, 2010).
Administered Colonies
Colonies maintained for resource extraction and economic exploitation rather than settlement.
Examples include India and many African colonies, marked by the dominance of a small colonial administration over a large indigenous population (Parsons, 2010).
Neocolonialism
A system where former colonies are formally independent but remain economically and politically dominated by former colonial powers.
Described by Kwame Nkrumah as maintaining sovereignty in appearance, but being controlled externally, particularly through global capitalism (Nkrumah, 1965; as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Civilizing Mission
The ideology that European powers were morally obligated to “civilize” colonized people by imposing European cultural values and institutions.
Central to French colonialism’s assimilationist ideology, aiming to integrate colonies into the cultural and political framework of the colonizing nation (Parsons, 2010).
Scramble for Africa
A late 19th-century phase of imperialism marked by European powers competing to acquire territories in Africa for economic and political advantages.
This period saw Africa carved into colonies by European nations, marking the peak of imperialist exploitation (Parsons, 2010).
A theoretical framework examining the effects and legacies of colonialism in formerly colonized nations, focusing on cultural, political, and economic continuities.
Highlights the cultural and economic patterns persisting after formal decolonization, questioning the binary of colonizer and colonized (Parsons, 2010).
A concept by Edward Said referring to the stereotypical depiction of the East by the West, reinforcing cultural dominance and justifying colonialism.
Said critiques colonial cultural hegemony, arguing that Orientalism creates a dichotomy between a “civilized” West and a “backward” East (Said, 1991; as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Nationalism
The ideology emphasizing the interests and culture of a nation, often used during colonization to consolidate power in the metropolitan center.
Integral to European colonialism, where nationalist agendas justified imperial expansions (Parsons, 2010).
Globalization
A phase of capitalism that extends the imperial economic system through interconnected global markets, even after formal decolonization.
Seen as a continuation of imperialism, with dominant nations exerting control through global economic structures (Parsons, 2010).
Monopoly Capitalism
A stage of capitalism described by Lenin, where economic power is concentrated in monopolistic entities, driving imperial expansion for financial gain.
Lenin characterizes imperialism as “the monopoly stage of capitalism,” focusing on capital investments rather than market competition (Lenin, 1917; as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Contribution of “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons to Literary Theory/Theories
Postcolonial Theory Parsons’ analysis provides a foundational understanding of the historical and ideological contexts of colonialism and imperialism, essential for postcolonial studies. By exploring how colonial practices shaped cultural, linguistic, and psychological identities, he aligns with theorists like Edward Said and Frantz Fanon, emphasizing the legacy of colonial power structures in literature (Parsons, 2010).
Orientalism Drawing on Edward Said’s concept, Parsons examines how colonialism established cultural dominance by creating dichotomies between the West and the “Other.” This understanding aids in analyzing texts that perpetuate or critique such stereotypes (Said, 1991; as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Cultural Hegemony The article’s exploration of the “civilizing mission” highlights how European cultural values were imposed through literature and education in colonized territories. This directly informs analyses of colonial and postcolonial literary works that internalize or resist such hegemonic narratives (Parsons, 2010).
Marxist Critiques of Imperialism By incorporating Lenin’s and Hobson’s economic theories, Parsons links imperialism to capitalism’s development. This connection enriches Marxist literary theory, especially in understanding how global economic systems influence narrative forms and themes (Lenin, 1917; Hobson, 1902; as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Nation and Narration Parsons discusses how nationalism underpinned colonial ideologies, offering insights into literary representations of nation-building and anti-colonial struggles. His analysis parallels works like Homi Bhabha’s Nation and Narration (Parsons, 2010).
Hybridity and Cultural Exchange The distinction between settler and administered colonies underscores the complexities of cultural interaction and exchange, which postcolonial theorists like Bhabha explore in terms of hybridity and ambivalence (Parsons, 2010).
Globalization as Neocolonialism Parsons’ discussion of neocolonialism and globalization connects to contemporary literary studies that critique how global capitalism perpetuates colonial dynamics in modern narratives (Nkrumah, 1965; as cited in Parsons, 2010).
Identity and Resistance The article’s examination of anticolonial movements and their ideological underpinnings provides a framework for analyzing literature that embodies resistance and the quest for identity in postcolonial societies (Parsons, 2010).
Racial Ideologies in Literature The exploration of racism as integral to colonialism invites critical analysis of racial hierarchies in colonial and postcolonial texts, resonating with theories addressing the intersections of race, power, and culture (Parsons, 2010).
Examples of Critiques Through “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons
Literary Work
Key Themes/Aspects
Critique Through Parsons’ Lens
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
European imperialism, exploitation of Africa, and cultural superiority.
Parsons’ insights into imperialism as the “economic exploitation of peripheral territories” align with the depiction of Africa as a resource to be exploited by European powers. Conrad critiques the “civilizing mission” ideology that Parsons discusses (Parsons, 2010).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart
Colonial encounter, cultural disruption, and resistance.
Parsons’ exploration of the imposition of European cultural values on indigenous populations is central to Achebe’s narrative. The book reflects the destructive impact of colonialism on Igbo society, resonating with Parsons’ emphasis on cultural domination (Parsons, 2010).
Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea
Postcolonial identity, racial and gendered oppression, and the aftermath of colonialism.
Rhys critiques the colonial legacy of racial hierarchies and cultural hegemony that Parsons associates with imperialism. The novel explores neocolonial relationships, mirroring Parsons’ insights on economic and cultural exploitation persisting after colonial rule (Parsons, 2010).
Rudyard Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden
Colonial propaganda, the “civilizing mission,” and racial superiority.
Parsons’ discussion of the ideological underpinnings of colonialism directly critiques Kipling’s framing of imperialism as a moral obligation. Kipling’s poem exemplifies the “civilizing mission” Parsons describes, highlighting the racial hierarchies of European colonial ideology (Parsons, 2010).
Criticism Against “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons
Overgeneralization of Colonial Experiences Critics might argue that Parsons’ framework treats colonial and imperial practices as overly uniform, potentially overlooking regional variations in colonial administration and resistance across different territories.
Limited Focus on Non-European Colonial Powers The analysis primarily centers on European colonialism, with limited exploration of non-European empires (e.g., Ottoman, Japanese) and their impacts, which could provide a more global perspective.
Emphasis on Economic and Political Aspects Over Cultural Nuances While Parsons discusses cultural imposition, some might critique the article for not fully engaging with the nuanced ways colonialism shaped individual and collective cultural identities, as highlighted by theorists like Homi Bhabha.
Simplification of Anticolonial Movements The treatment of anticolonial struggles, while broad, could be seen as insufficiently detailed regarding the ideological and internal complexities of movements like Indian nationalism or Pan-Africanism.
Potential Neglect of Indigenous Perspectives Parsons’ analysis largely reflects the perspective of colonial powers and postcolonial theorists, with less emphasis on indigenous voices and their conceptualizations of colonialism and imperialism.
Focus on Historical Narratives Over Contemporary Relevance While Parsons addresses neocolonialism, some critics might find the exploration of contemporary global power dynamics in relation to imperialism underdeveloped.
Insufficient Engagement with Gender The article could be critiqued for not fully addressing the intersections of colonialism, imperialism, and gender, which are significant areas in postcolonial theory and feminist critiques of empire.
Limited Practical Application for Literary Analysis Although the article provides a strong theoretical foundation, it might be critiqued for offering fewer direct applications of these concepts to specific literary texts, leaving interpretations to be inferred.
Representative Quotations from “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons with Explanation
“Colonialism and imperialism are two closely related but separate terms…”
This highlights the distinction between the two concepts, central to the framework of Parsons’ analysis. It underscores the nuances in political, economic, and cultural domination.
“Modern European colonialism and imperialism are inextricably bound to the development of capitalism.”
Parsons connects colonial practices to the broader economic framework of capitalism, emphasizing how colonialism facilitated global economic integration.
“Dominance is predicated on the colonized territory being economically and culturally underdeveloped.”
This underscores the hierarchical relationship between the metropolis and periphery, integral to understanding colonial exploitation.
“The practice of establishing overseas trading and agricultural settlements was given new life…”
This situates colonialism in a historical trajectory, showing its transformation from ancient practices to modern capitalist endeavors.
“The ideology of colonialism, bound up with expansionist capitalism and aggressive nationalism…”
Parsons critiques colonialism’s ideological foundations, linking it to racial superiority and cultural imperialism.
“Imperialism is widely understood to differ from colonialism, but how it differs is a matter of debate.”
This statement introduces the ongoing theoretical discussion regarding the conceptual boundaries between colonialism and imperialism.
“The Scramble for Africa… was competitive acquisition of overseas territories…”
Describes imperialism’s aggressive phase, reflecting European powers’ competition for economic and political dominance.
“Neocolonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent…”
Drawing on Kwame Nkrumah, this critiques the persistence of imperialism through economic and political dominance after formal decolonization.
“The primary purpose of colonization was trade and settlement, but transposing European cultural values…”
Parsons identifies cultural imposition as a core aspect of colonialism, aligning with Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism.
“Imperialism was thus not a commercial concern, but a financial operation.”
This reflects Lenin’s critique of imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism, driven by financial and industrial motives rather than free-market trade.
Suggested Readings: “Colonialism/Imperialism” By Cóilín Parsons
Parsons, Cóilín. “Colonialism/Imperialism.” The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory (2010).
Curtin, Philip D. “The Black Experience of Colonialism and Imperialism.” Daedalus, vol. 103, no. 2, 1974, pp. 17–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024202. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Adas, Michael. “Imperialism and Colonialism in Comparative Perspective.” The International History Review, vol. 20, no. 2, 1998, pp. 371–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40108227. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Thornton, A. P. “Colonialism.” International Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, 1962, pp. 335–57. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/40198890. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Emerson, Rupert. “Colonialism.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 4, no. 1, 1969, pp. 3–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/259788. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Horvath, Ronald J. “A Definition of Colonialism.” Current Anthropology, vol. 13, no. 1, 1972, pp. 45–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741072. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Hawkins, Hunt. “Conrad’s Critique of Imperialism in Heart of Darkness.” PMLA, vol. 94, no. 2, 1979, pp. 286–99. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/461892. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
“The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida first appeared in Hegel and the Foundations of Literary Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2018).
Introduction: “The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida
“The Master–Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida first appeared in Hegel and the Foundations of Literary Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2018). This influential text critically explores the allegorical and historical readings of Hegel’s master–slave dialectic as reimagined by Deleuze and Derrida, focusing on its implications for understanding subjectivity, recognition, and the dynamics of power and language in literature. Deleuze critiques Hegel’s dialectic for being trapped in what he terms the “nihilistic perspective,” wherein negation undermines the potential for affirming difference. Derrida, drawing from Bataille, disrupts Hegelian lordship with the notion of sovereignty, emphasizing the dialectic’s servility in its pursuit of meaning. Central to their argument is the idea that Hegelian dialectics represent a “labor of the negative,” shaping both philosophical and economic dimensions of modernity. A pivotal assertion from Derrida states, “The entire history of meaning is represented by the figure of the slave” (Writing and Difference, p. 262), highlighting how servility underpins systems of recognition and labor in literary and philosophical contexts. Their analyses underscore the master–slave dialectic’s enduring influence on literary theory, providing tools to critique and reframe narratives of power and identity.
Summary of “The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida
1. Historical and Philosophical Context
Hegel’s Dialectic as a Lens: Hegel’s master–slave dialectic serves as a foundational metaphor for exploring the nature of subjectivity, recognition, and social transformation. It links human history to the interplay between mastery and servitude, suggesting that human identity emerges through desire and recognition (Kojève, IRH).
Traditions of Interpretation: The dialectic has influenced a variety of traditions—Hegelian Marxism (Lukács), French philosophy (Kojève, Sartre, Lacan), and psychoanalysis (Lacan, Casey, Woody)—emphasizing its relevance across philosophical and political spheres (HDD, 2–17).
2. Deleuze’s Nietzschean Critique of Hegel
Rejection of Dialectics: Deleuze critiques Hegel’s reliance on negation as a mechanism of progress, positioning Nietzsche’s philosophy as anti-dialectical and emphasizing affirmation, difference, and pluralism instead (NP, 9).
Mastery and Slavery as Reactive Forces: Deleuze argues that Hegel’s conception of mastery reflects a reactive, “slave” mentality rather than the proactive affirmation of Nietzsche’s noble “master” (NP, 10).
Critique of Hegelian Negativity: Deleuze sees the Hegelian dialectic as nihilistic, driven by ressentiment and lacking the capacity to create new values (NP, 159).
3. Derrida’s Deconstructive Approach
Sovereignty vs. Lordship: Derrida reframes Hegel’s “lordship” as “sovereignty,” emphasizing risk, chance, and loss that exceed Hegelian sublation (WD, 254). Sovereignty embodies the willingness to embrace absolute loss, unlike the calculated risks of lordship.
The Comedy of the Dialectic: Derrida critiques Hegel’s reliance on meaning and closure, suggesting that the dialectic enslaves itself by restricting its potential for genuine risk and play (WD, 257).
Language and Restricted Economy: Derrida links language and the dialectic to a “restricted economy” of labor and value, reflecting the logic of capitalism and excluding the possibility of true excess and freedom (WD, 271).
4. Broader Implications for Capitalism and Humanism
Economic Analogies: Both Deleuze and Derrida use the master–slave dialectic as a metaphor for capitalist structures, illustrating how labor, value, and recognition are intertwined in systems of economic and linguistic production (SM, 60).
Critique of Liberal Humanism: Derrida’s deconstruction resists humanistic resolutions to dialectical contradictions, rejecting closure and embracing the fluidity of language as an endless system of relationality (WD, 266–71).
5. The Political and Practical Significance
Ethics of Recognition: Derrida highlights the dangers of Eurocentrism and the false “risk” in systems seeking recognition only among equals. He calls for genuine acknowledgment of the “Other,” which destabilizes dominant systems (SM, 62).
Limits of Capitalist Critique: While exposing the capitalist logic embedded in language and labor, Derrida’s critique remains abstract, resisting any tangible transition to an alternative system or stage (WD, 257).
References
Deleuze, G. (2002). Nietzsche and Philosophy. London and New York: Continuum. (NP)
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (WD)
Kojève, A. (1980). Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (IRH)
Derrida, J. (1994). Specters of Marx. New York and London: Routledge. (SM)
Hegel, G.W.F. (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (PS)
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida
Term/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Relevance in the Text
Master–Slave Dialectic
Hegel’s philosophical model of self-consciousness and mutual recognition, where the master dominates and the slave serves.
Central metaphor for exploring subjectivity, recognition, and social power dynamics in historical and philosophical contexts.
Recognition
The process by which self-consciousness develops through acknowledgment by another.
Explored as the basis for subjectivity and humanity. Kojève and Derrida emphasize the political and existential stakes of recognition.
Contribution: Derrida’s deconstruction challenges the totalizing logic of the Hegelian dialectic by emphasizing the irreducibility of difference and the limitations of synthesis. His critique of Aufhebung underlines the necessity of resisting closure in interpretive frameworks.
Reference and Quotation: Derrida critiques the Hegelian dialectic for turning negativity into “an investment in absolute meaning,” thereby reducing the potential for genuine subversion (WD, 257). Instead, he calls for “a space which [dialectic] no longer dominates” (WD, 266).
Impact: Literary theory, influenced by Derrida, moves toward an emphasis on textual indeterminacy, rejecting hierarchical binaries (e.g., master/slave, meaning/signifier) and embracing multiplicity.
Contribution: Deleuze, through Nietzsche and Lacan, highlights the reactive forces of ressentiment embedded in the master–slave dialectic, focusing on how the dialectic constructs subjectivity through power dynamics and repression.
Reference and Quotation: Deleuze argues that the dialectic is “the natural ideology of ressentiment and bad conscience” (NP, 159), emphasizing its psychological underpinnings as a reactive process rather than active creation.
Impact: This interpretation informs psychoanalytic criticism by focusing on the role of repression and sublimation in literature, analyzing how texts reflect underlying psychological and power structures.
Contribution: Both theorists critique the economic and political structures underpinning Hegel’s master–slave dialectic, which Derrida likens to a “restricted economy” modeled on capitalist production and exchange.
Reference and Quotation: Derrida notes that the dialectic functions as “a circuit of reproductive consumption,” limiting the subversive potential of labor and creativity to systems of capitalist logic (WD, 271). Deleuze emphasizes that the slave’s labor transforms the world but remains constrained by systems of power.
Impact: This critique deepens Marxist analyses of labor, alienation, and ideology in literature, especially how texts mediate the contradictions of class struggle and capitalism.
Contribution: The dialectic’s focus on recognition and domination provides a framework for understanding colonial and postcolonial relations. Derrida’s emphasis on “difference as unassimilable” critiques Eurocentric models of universality.
Reference and Quotation: Derrida warns of the dangers of “a perpetuated Eurocentrism, in which recognition is sought only among ‘equals'” (SM, 66), challenging the coercive normalization of diverse identities.
Impact: Postcolonial theory adopts these insights to critique how literature reinforces or resists colonial power structures and representations of the “Other.”
Contribution: The dialectic’s emphasis on recognition parallels the interaction between reader and text. Derrida’s notion of play foregrounds the reader’s active role in destabilizing textual meaning.
Reference and Quotation: Derrida describes sovereign writing as “absolutely adventurous,” yielding “no certitude, no result, no profit” (WD, 273), encouraging readers to engage texts without seeking final meaning.
Impact: This supports theories emphasizing the reader’s interpretive freedom and the instability of textual meaning.
Contribution: Simone de Beauvoir’s application of the master–slave dialectic to gender dynamics, as referenced in the article, intersects with Deleuze’s critique of reactive forces and Derrida’s focus on subversion.
Reference and Quotation: De Beauvoir views the dialectic as “concerning, among things, gender,” framing it as a struggle for recognition within social and political contexts (p. 182).
Impact: These insights inform feminist critiques of literature by analyzing how gendered power structures are represented and contested in texts.
7. Theories of Language and Semiotics
Contribution: Derrida’s association of language with a restricted economy critiques Hegel’s alignment of labor and signification, arguing that language perpetuates systems of control and reproduction.
Reference and Quotation: Derrida describes language as a system of “accumulation, where the risk is undertaken only as an investment in meaning” (WD, 270).
Impact: This contributes to semiotic theories that interrogate the ideological implications of language in literature, revealing its complicity in systems of power.
8. Cultural Criticism
Contribution: Both theorists extend the implications of the master–slave dialectic to modern capitalism and cultural production, providing a lens for examining contemporary cultural texts.
Reference and Quotation: Deleuze critiques the dialectic as “operating entirely within the nihilistic perspective,” perpetuating structures of domination rather than fostering genuine cultural pluralism (NP, 159).
Impact: Cultural criticism uses these insights to analyze how texts navigate or reinforce systems of commodification and hegemony.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida
Literary Work
Critique Through Master–Slave Dialectic
Key Theoretical Lens
Quotations/References from Deleuze & Derrida
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad
The colonial dynamics between Kurtz (master) and the indigenous people (slave) exemplify the dialectic of domination and subversion. Kurtz’s dependence on the recognition of the “Other” aligns with Hegelian themes, while Derrida’s critique of Eurocentrism highlights the coercive assimilation of difference.
Postcolonial Theory
Derrida critiques “Eurocentrism, in which recognition is sought only among ‘equals'” (SM, 66), critiquing imperialist justifications for exploitation.
“Wuthering Heights” by Emily Brontë
Heathcliff’s relationship with the Earnshaws reflects a master–slave dynamic driven by ressentiment. Deleuze’s analysis of reactive forces explains Heathcliff’s vengeful transformation of dependency into power.
Psychoanalytic Criticism
Deleuze describes ressentiment as “the revolt of the slaves and their victory as slaves” (NP, 117), explaining Heathcliff’s vengeful actions.
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison
The novel’s depiction of slavery and trauma critiques the Hegelian view of labor leading to freedom, aligning with Derrida’s skepticism of sublation. Morrison’s portrayal of Sethe’s struggle for recognition highlights unassimilable difference.
Feminist and Poststructuralist Literary Theory
Derrida: “Difference that resists sublation, that is irreducible to ultimate identity” (WD, 266), resonates with Sethe’s unresolvable trauma.
“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett
The master–slave relationship between Pozzo and Lucky parodies the dialectic’s reliance on reciprocal recognition. Derrida’s emphasis on the failure of meaning aligns with the existential futility depicted in the play.
Deconstruction and Existentialism
Derrida critiques “the comedy of the Aufhebung,” where sublation becomes “servile” by enslaving itself to meaning (WD, 257).
Key Takeaways:
Colonialism and Postcolonial Theory: Examined through Eurocentric master–slave dynamics in Heart of Darkness.
Power and Ressentiment: Explored in Wuthering Heights as a reactive force transforming servitude into dominance.
Trauma and Recognition: Investigated in Beloved, where sublation fails to resolve the scars of slavery.
Futility of Sublation: Highlighted in Waiting for Godot through the absurdity of the master–slave relationship.
Criticism Against “The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida
Abstract and Ahistorical Focus
Critics argue that Deleuze’s and Derrida’s interpretations often detach the master–slave dialectic from its historical and material context, making it overly abstract and less applicable to real-world social and economic conditions.
Neglect of Practical Political Implications
Both thinkers emphasize the philosophical and linguistic dimensions of the dialectic but fail to address its direct political or socio-economic implications, particularly in addressing systemic issues like capitalism, colonialism, or class struggle.
Overemphasis on Language and Textuality
Derrida’s focus on the linguistic economy and “writing” as central to the dialectic has been critiqued for sidelining material realities and reducing the dialectic to a purely semiotic or discursive exercise.
Dismissal of Dialectical Progress
Deleuze’s outright rejection of the dialectic as a “slave mentality” dismisses Hegel’s progressive view of history and reconciliation, which some argue undermines the transformative potential of the dialectical framework.
Neglect of Agency and Resistance
Critics point out that both thinkers downplay the potential for agency and resistance embedded in the dialectic, particularly in contexts like labor, revolution, and social change, which are central to Hegel’s original vision.
Tendency Toward Nihilism
Deleuze’s critique of the dialectic as grounded in ressentiment and nihilism, as well as Derrida’s focus on destabilizing meaning, have been criticized for fostering a nihilistic outlook that rejects constructive alternatives.
Reduction of Hegel’s Complexity
Both Deleuze and Derrida are accused of oversimplifying or misrepresenting Hegel’s master–slave dialectic, particularly its emphasis on reciprocal recognition and the transformative potential of labor and struggle.
Exclusion of Ethical Dimensions
Derrida’s deconstruction and Deleuze’s critique of the dialectic have been critiqued for neglecting the ethical dimensions of Hegel’s framework, which emphasizes mutual recognition and the development of freedom.
Overuse of Allegory
Their “allegorical readings” of the master–slave dialectic have been critiqued for prioritizing metaphorical interpretations over concrete analysis, making their critiques less grounded in tangible philosophical or literary analysis.
Representative Quotations from “The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida with Explanation
“Desire is human only if one desires not the body but the desire of another.”
This highlights the centrality of recognition in Hegel’s dialectic. It frames human desire as inherently social and relational, emphasizing the necessity of mutual recognition for humanity.
“The master–slave dialectic is integral to man’s humanity.”
Suggests that the dialectic is not merely an abstract concept but foundational to the construction of human identity, grounded in recognition and struggle.
“The dialectic is the natural ideology of ressentiment and bad conscience.”
Deleuze criticizes the Hegelian dialectic as inherently rooted in negativity and reactive forces, which he equates with Nietzschean ressentiment. This frames the dialectic as a symptom of a nihilistic worldview.
“The slave only conceives of power as the object of recognition, the content of representation.”
Deleuze critiques Hegel’s depiction of the master as a projection of the slave’s own desires and aspirations, reducing mastery to a recognition-based dynamic devoid of authentic creation or affirmation.
“Sovereignty would represent the actual taking of the risk of death.”
Derrida’s distinction between Hegelian lordship and Bataillean sovereignty points to a fundamental divergence in understanding the stakes of mastery, framing sovereignty as radical and unbound by the need for recognition.
“Hegelian speculative thought reappropriates and overcomes all negativity, all risk.”
Derrida critiques the Hegelian system for its totalizing nature, which he sees as subsuming all oppositional forces into itself, thus negating genuine difference or disruption.
“Labor is the means through which recognition is achieved.”
Hegelian labor is presented as a universalizing activity that transforms both the world and the self. This underscores the dialectic’s focus on the transformative power of work.
“The Aufhebung is the victory of the slave.”
Derrida and Deleuze critique the Hegelian dialectic as fundamentally reactive, with its progression depending on the negation of differences rather than their affirmation, framing it as a product of servile consciousness.
“The master here is effectively the idea of him formed by the slave.”
Deleuze argues that Hegel’s master is a construct of the slave’s imagination, reducing mastery to a psychological condition rather than an independent state.
“The dialectic operates and moves in the element of fiction.”
Deleuze critiques the dialectic as abstract and detached from material reality, suggesting it relies on fictive oppositions that fail to grasp the complexity of real-life forces and relations.
Suggested Readings: “The Master-Slave Dialectic in Literary Theory” by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida
Hartnell, Anna. “Double Consciousness and the Master/Slave Dialectic: W.E.B. Du Bois.” Rewriting Exodus: American Futures from Du Bois to Obama, Pluto Press, 2011, pp. 66–97. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183pdn4.7. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
DENZ, JACOB. “BONDSMEN AND SLAVES: SERVILE HISTORIES IN HEGEL AND NIETZSCHE.” History and Theory, vol. 55, no. 3, 2016, pp. 357–74. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24809606. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
Brown, Richard Harvey. “Dialectical Irony. Literary Form and Sociological Theory.” Poetics Today, vol. 4, no. 3, 1983, pp. 543–64. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772031. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
“Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter first appeared in The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory (2010), offering an in-depth exploration of the intellectual framework and historical evolution of the Chicago School of criticism.
Introduction: “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter
“Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter first appeared in The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory (2010), offering an in-depth exploration of the intellectual framework and historical evolution of the Chicago School of criticism. Central to this theory is its emphasis on “instrumental pluralism,” which views literary criticism not as a monolithic discipline but as a collection of diverse and incommensurable frameworks. This pluralistic approach acknowledges the limitations and strengths of various critical systems, emphasizing their specific applications to literary works. Additionally, the Chicago School’s focus on formalist genre theory and rhetorical interpretation advanced the understanding of narrative structures and the intentionality behind literary works. Wayne Booth’s contributions to rhetorical theory further cemented this school’s impact, as his work bridged gaps between critical traditions and highlighted the dynamic relationship between authors, texts, and readers. As Richter explains, “Pluralism reveals the inherent limitations of one’s own critical methods and humbles critics with a sense of the partial insights their work can provide.” This theoretical model remains influential in its ability to navigate the complexities of literary interpretation while fostering intellectual dialogue across critical perspectives.
Summary of “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter
Key Ideas and Concepts
Historical Context and Foundational Ideas
The Chicago School refers to a group of literary critics and theorists at the University of Chicago, flourishing primarily in the 1950s and 1960s.
Key figures of the first generation include R.S. Crane and his colleagues, who focused on formalist genre theory and instrumental pluralism (Richter, 2010).
Instrumental pluralism, inspired by Kantian philosophy, emphasizes the diversity of critical frameworks, viewing them as distinct tools for understanding literature.
Development of the Second Generation
The second generation of Chicago critics—Wayne Booth, Ralph Rader, and Sheldon Sacks—expanded and modified the original principles, particularly through rhetorical theory and genre studies.
Booth’s work in rhetorical theory of fiction became particularly influential, emphasizing the interaction between authorial intention, textual form, and reader response (Richter, 2010).
Instrumental Pluralism
This concept views literary criticism as a collection of frameworks with unique principles, methods, and limitations. It rejects the notion of a single overarching critical method (Crane, 1953).
Crane argued that competing approaches like Marxism and Freudian analysis created interpretive Babel, necessitating a pluralistic perspective.
However, instrumental pluralism faced criticism for being theoretically inconsistent, particularly in Crane’s selective application of relativism (Richter, 2010).
Gestaltist Approach
The Chicago School’s Gestaltist approach posited that literature should be viewed as a coherent whole, where the parts derive meaning from their relationship to the overall structure.
Critics like Rader emphasized that literature provides its own context and meaning, functioning independently of external purposes (Rader, 1974b).
Genre Theory: Constructional, Preconstructional, and Postconstructional Aspects
The Chicago School developed a nuanced theory of genres:
Preconstructional genres derive from literary traditions (e.g., the sonnet, picaresque novel).
Postconstructional genres relate to how completed works affect readers.
Constructional genres, central to the Chicago method, focus on the artistic principles organizing a work’s parts into a unified whole (Richter, 2010).
Rhetorical and Teleological Shifts
The second-generation critics shifted focus toward rhetorical and teleological concerns. Booth, for instance, argued for understanding texts as acts of communication between authors and readers.
This rhetorical turn emphasized the inferred creative intentions behind literary forms, challenging earlier formalist commitments to textual autonomy (Richter, 2010).
Critiques and Limitations
The Chicago School faced criticism for its “pedantic micro-taxonomy” of genres, perceived as overly rigid and disconnected from broader literary developments (Webster, 1979).
The first generation’s insistence on textual autonomy was later revised to include intentionalist perspectives, as demonstrated in Rader’s analysis of Gray’s Elegy (Rader, 1974a).
Examples and Citations
Instrumental Pluralism: Crane described literary criticism as “a collection of distinct and more or less incommensurable ‘frameworks’ or ‘languages'” (Crane, 1953, p. 13).
Rhetorical Theory: Booth argued that criticism should address “the artistic respectability of the visibly ‘rhetorical’ elements” in literature (Booth, 1970, p. 1601).
Genre Theory: Constructional genres reflect “the artistic principles and judgments operative in their composition,” synthesizing action, character, and language into a coherent whole (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
Legacy and Relevance
The Chicago School contributed significantly to literary criticism by integrating formalist, rhetorical, and pluralistic approaches. Although its influence has waned compared to New Criticism, its emphasis on genre theory and instrumental pluralism continues to inform contemporary debates in literary studies.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter
Term/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Reference in Text
Neo-Aristotelianism
A critical framework rooted in Aristotelian principles, emphasizing formalist genre theory and instrumental pluralism.
Introduced by R.S. Crane and the first generation of Chicago critics (Richter, 2010).
Instrumental Pluralism
The idea that literary criticism is a collection of distinct frameworks, each with unique powers and limitations.
Crane: “Critical systems are unique frameworks answering specific types of questions” (Crane, 1953, p. 13).
Formalist Genre Theory
A focus on the structural and formal aspects of genres, viewing texts as unified wholes with intrinsic coherence.
Central to the first generation of Chicago critics (Richter, 2010).
Gestalt Criticism
A perspective viewing literary texts as coherent wholes, where the meaning of parts is governed by the whole pattern.
“Inferred sense of the whole-as-pattern governs the meaning of parts” (Rader, 1974b).
Constructional Genre
Genres derived from the internal principles and artistic purposes shaping a literary work’s unity.
“Constructional aspects embody the artistic principles of composition” (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
Preconstructional Genre
Genres based on historical traditions and literary forms as templates for works.
“Relations of works to their origins and sources” (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
Postconstructional Genre
Genres focusing on the impact of works on readers, encompassing broader human values and experiences.
“Effects of completed works on readers” (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
Rhetorical Criticism
An approach emphasizing the author’s communication with the reader and the rhetorical elements of the text.
Championed by Wayne Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction (Richter, 2010).
Teleological Shift
A transition from textual autonomy to understanding the inferred creative intentions of authors.
“Shifted focus to the interpretive decisions informed by creative intention” (Richter, 2010).
Scientific Method Analogy
The use of hypotheses in genre criticism, tested against textual evidence for refinement.
“Hypotheses must be modified or discarded based on empirical data” (Crane, 1967, p. 236–60).
Tacit Knowledge
The intuitive understanding of genres and literary forms by readers, shaped by innate cognitive structures.
Sacks: “Grounds of our awareness of forms lie in the mind’s innate structures” (Sacks, 1968, p. 189).
Mimetic vs. Didactic Works
Broad genre classification distinguishing works that imitate reality (mimetic) and those with a teaching purpose (didactic).
Olson’s distinction between “mimetic” and “didactic” works (Olson, 1952a).
Rhetorical Pluralism
Recognition of multiple critical frameworks as valid but limited, with a focus on systematic organization of claims.
Booth: “Criticism must systematically organize conflicting critical claims” (Booth, 1979).
Genre as Dynamic System
A flexible, historical view of genre accommodating changes in artistic practice and cultural contexts.
Rader: “Genre is abstract and malleable” (Rader, 1979, p. 189).
Textual Autonomy
A focus on analyzing the internal structure of literary texts, excluding external influences like authorial intent.
Crane: “Provisional exclusion of external factors to focus on internal causes” (Crane, 1952b, p. 20).
Contribution of “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Formalist Genre Theory
The Chicago School emphasized a systematic study of genres, focusing on their internal structure and formal unity (Richter, 2010).
This formalist approach shifted critical attention from thematic interpretations to how texts achieve coherence and artistic purpose through genre-specific principles (Crane, 1952a).
2. Instrumental Pluralism
The concept of instrumental pluralism introduced a framework for integrating diverse critical approaches, acknowledging their unique strengths and limitations (Crane, 1953, p. 13).
It responded to the interpretive conflicts between competing theories like Marxism, Freudianism, and New Criticism, promoting coexistence over dominance (Richter, 2010).
3. Rhetorical Criticism
Wayne Booth’s rhetorical theory highlighted the relationship between authors, texts, and readers, establishing the significance of rhetorical devices in narrative construction (Booth, 1983).
This perspective shifted literary criticism toward understanding texts as acts of communication, enriching discussions on narrative ethics and reader engagement (Richter, 2010).
4. Development of Genre Theory
The Chicago School expanded genre theory into preconstructional, postconstructional, and constructional genres, addressing the historical, reader-response, and artistic dimensions of texts (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
This tripartite framework influenced later studies on how genres evolve and how they are perceived by readers and critics alike.
5. Gestalt Criticism
The idea of texts as coherent wholes, where meaning is derived from the relationship between parts and the whole, introduced psychological insights into literary analysis (Rader, 1974b).
This approach influenced interpretive methodologies that prioritize structural unity over fragmented or ambiguous readings (Richter, 2010).
6. Teleological Focus in Literary Analysis
The shift from textual autonomy to a teleological emphasis on inferred creative intention redefined how critics understood authorship and artistic purpose (Richter, 2010).
This marked a departure from rigid formalism, allowing for more dynamic interpretations informed by authorial intent and narrative goals (Rader, 1974a).
7. Hypothesis-Driven Criticism
R.S. Crane advocated for applying scientific methods, such as hypothesis formation and testing, to literary criticism (Crane, 1967, p. 236–60).
This contribution encouraged a more empirical and systematic approach to analyzing texts and validating interpretive claims.
8. Tacit Knowledge and Reader Cognition
The Chicago School explored how innate cognitive structures inform readers’ understanding of genres, connecting literary theory with psychological and linguistic insights (Sacks, 1968, p. 189).
This interdisciplinary approach influenced reader-response theories and studies on narrative comprehension.
9. Critique and Refinement of Critical Systems
The Chicago School critiqued rigid monistic and skeptical approaches, advocating for pluralistic yet coherent systems of criticism (Richter, 2010).
This critique helped shape debates on the limitations and intersections of various literary theories, fostering progressive dialogue (Booth, 1979).
By balancing the study of textual structures with an emphasis on reader interpretation, the Chicago School provided a middle ground between structuralist and reader-response theories (Richter, 2010).
This bridging role enriched discussions on how texts generate meaning through both their form and their reception.
Examples of Critiques Through “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter
Literary Work
Critic
Critique Through Chicago School Theory
Reference in Text
“Tom Jones” by Henry Fielding
R. S. Crane
Analyzed as a “morally serious comedy” where the unity of form derives from its synthesis of moral themes and comedic structure.
Crane emphasized its artistic coherence and categorization within genre as “morally serious” (Crane, 1968, p. 100).
“Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” by Thomas Gray
R. S. Crane & Ralph Rader
Crane viewed the work as an imitative lyric focusing on structural unity, while Rader connected the speaker to Gray, emphasizing creative intention.
Crane: focus on structure (Crane, 1953, p. 99); Rader: inferred autobiographical connection (Rader, 1974a, p. 93).
“Moll Flanders” by Daniel Defoe
Ralph Rader
Critiqued as a novel where mixed forms and extraformal intentions (e.g., realism and moral didacticism) challenged rigid genre classifications.
Rader highlighted its malleable genre and structural experimentation (Rader, 1973, p. 356).
“Lolita” by Vladimir Nabokov
Sheldon Sacks
Analyzed as a complex narrative combining satire and psychological depth, requiring multi-level interpretation of genre and intention.
Sacks critiqued its amalgamation of comic and didactic tendencies, complicating genre boundaries (Richter, 2010).
Criticism Against “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter
Critics argue that the Chicago School’s focus on formal unity often neglects broader cultural, social, and historical contexts of literary works (Richter, 2010).
The rigid adherence to structural analysis can limit interpretations that account for evolving reader experiences or external influences.
2. Inconsistent Pluralism
R.S. Crane’s instrumental pluralism, while advocating for diverse critical systems, has been criticized for selectively favoring certain frameworks over others (Booth, 1979).
Crane’s theoretical openness often contradicts his practical dismissal of competing methodologies, such as New Criticism and anthropological approaches.
3. Resistance to Modern Critical Trends
The Chicago School is seen as resistant to integrating newer critical perspectives, such as postmodernism, deconstruction, and feminist theory, limiting its relevance in contemporary scholarship (Richter, 2010).
Its focus on genre and rhetorical structure is viewed as insufficient for addressing questions of identity, power, and ideology.
4. Pedantic Genre Classifications
The detailed genre classifications, described as “pedantic micro-taxonomy,” are often criticized for overcomplicating literary analysis without offering practical insights (Webster, 1979).
This approach risks reducing literary works to rigid categories, overlooking their dynamic and hybrid qualities.
5. Limited Engagement with Reader Subjectivity
While emphasizing the relationship between author, text, and reader, the Chicago School often prioritizes authorial intent over the reader’s interpretive agency (Richter, 2010).
This neglect of the subjective experience of readers weakens its alignment with modern reader-response theories.
6. Neglect of Broader Moral and Political Values
Critics highlight the school’s admitted inability to address larger moral and political implications of literature, focusing narrowly on structural unity (Crane, 1953, p. 192).
This limitation weakens its applicability to works deeply rooted in sociopolitical critique or cultural commentary.
7. Insufficient Practical Criticism
The school has been critiqued for failing to produce significant practical criticism that could establish a robust interpretive tradition (Webster, 1979).
Its theoretical principles often overshadow its contributions to actual literary analysis, diminishing its practical utility in broader critical discourse.
8. Static View of Genres
The treatment of genres as relatively fixed or bounded systems has been critiqued for failing to accommodate the fluid and evolving nature of literary forms (Rader, 1979).
This static view underestimates the adaptability and cross-genre experimentation present in many works.
Representative Quotations from “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter with Explanation
“Literary criticism is not … a single discipline … but rather a collection of distinct and more or less incommensurable ‘frameworks’ or ‘languages.'” (Crane, 1953, p. 13)
This encapsulates R.S. Crane’s concept of instrumental pluralism, emphasizing the coexistence of diverse critical frameworks, each suited for specific questions about literature.
“Pluralism reveals the inherent limitations of one’s own critical methods and humbles critics with a sense of the partial insights their work can provide.” (Booth, 1979, p. 84)
Booth underscores the epistemological limits of any single approach, advocating for a pluralistic dialogue that embraces differing methods for deeper understanding of literary works.
“The inferred sense of the whole-as-pattern is what governs the perceived meaning of the parts.” (Rader, 1974a)
This reflects the Gestaltist approach of the Chicago School, emphasizing the interrelation of a literary work’s components and its overall structural unity in shaping meaning.
“Each critical system is thus an instrument with powers and limitations peculiar to itself.” (Richter, 2010)
The Chicago School recognizes that no critical methodology is universally applicable; each has unique strengths and blind spots, necessitating pluralistic approaches to criticism.
“The creative freedom of writers may bring extraformal intentions to the text, accommodating mixed forms and evolving genres.” (Rader, 1979, p. 189)
Rader highlights the adaptability of genre to evolving literary practices, acknowledging the dynamism of form beyond rigid structural definitions.
“The function of pluralism lies in leading critics to a deeper understanding of one another’s work and to viewing the exchange of ideas as part of an ongoing and potentially progressive dialogue.” (Booth, 1979, p. 981)
Booth advocates for pluralism as a means to foster meaningful, collaborative discourse among critics, contrasting with antagonistic or monistic critical models.
“Genres are understood to derive from the artistic principles and judgments operative in their composition.” (Crane, 1967, II:18)
This underscores the Chicago School’s constructional genre theory, emphasizing how artistic intent and structural design shape the categorization and interpretation of literary works.
“The radical ambiguities of deconstruction can distort the comprehensibility of poetic intention.” (Rader, 1974b, p. 250)
Rader critiques deconstructive approaches, asserting that overemphasis on ambiguity undermines the clarity and purpose inherent in literary texts.
“Moll Flanders and Ulysses exemplify how structural experimentation resists traditional genre boundaries.” (Rader, 1973, p. 356)
Rader’s analysis of these novels demonstrates the Chicago School’s flexibility in addressing works that challenge conventional genre expectations, reflecting its broader applicability.
“The provisional exclusion of external factors is necessary if the analysis is to be concentrated upon the internal causes which account for the peculiar construction and effect of any poem qua artistic whole.” (Crane, 1952b, p. 20)
Crane defends the Chicago School’s focus on textual autonomy, advocating for an inward analysis of literary works to determine their unique artistic coherence.
Suggested Readings: “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter
Shen, Dan. “Neo-Aristotelian Rhetorical Narrative Study: Need for Integrating Style, Context and Intertext.” Style, vol. 45, no. 4, 2011, pp. 576–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.45.4.576. Accessed 13 Jan. 2025.
“Literary Theory in the United States: A Survey.” New Literary History, vol. 14, no. 2, 1983, pp. 409–51. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468694. Accessed 13 Jan. 2025.
“Philosophy and the Crisis of Contemporary Literary Theory” by Suresh Raval first appeared in The Monist, Vol. 69, No. 1, in January 1986, published by Oxford University Press.
Introduction: “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
“Philosophy and the Crisis of Contemporary Literary Theory” by Suresh Raval first appeared in The Monist, Vol. 69, No. 1, in January 1986, published by Oxford University Press. This seminal article examines the epistemological and philosophical tensions within literary criticism, addressing the disintegration of traditional frameworks due to the rise of post-structuralist and deconstructionist theories. Raval critiques the assumption of universal, determinate meaning in traditional literary theory, juxtaposing it with the postmodern embrace of indeterminacy and historicity. Central to his argument is the notion that “the crisis of contemporary literary theory consists… in the fact that contemporary literary theory is unable to come to terms with the implications of a loss of an Archimedean position from which to talk about literature and society.” The article underscores the importance of recognizing the historical contingency of critical practices and emphasizes dialogue and interpretative plurality as pathways to revitalizing literary theory amidst its crisis.
Summary of “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
Raval addresses the prevalent crisis in literary criticism, emphasizing its loss of coherence as a discipline with clear objectives and methods. He attributes this to the challenge posed by post-structuralist and deconstructionist theories, which question long-held assumptions about meaning and objectivity (Raval, 1986, p. 119).
The “hermeneutic of suspicion” replaces the “hermeneutic of belief,” undermining traditional epistemologies and canonical notions of text and meaning (p. 120).
2. Deconstruction and Indeterminacy
Deconstruction introduces radical indeterminacy, destabilizing the foundations of modernist critical frameworks such as New Criticism, structuralism, and psychoanalysis (p. 121).
This critique paradoxically relies on a degree of certainty, revealing internal contradictions in theories that attempt to dismantle traditional notions of meaning (p. 122).
Structuralism’s initial aim to uncover universal linguistic and cultural structures evolved into a historicist approach, recognizing the temporality and fluidity of conventions (p. 123).
This shift paved the way for post-structuralism, which critiques structuralism’s residual universalism and its attempt to historicize itself (p. 124).
4. Gadamer and the Historicity of Meaning
Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics offer a middle ground between determinacy and indeterminacy. Gadamer views meaning as a historical and contingent product of cultural interactions, opposing the rigidity of objectivity and the extremes of deconstruction (p. 125).
This perspective suggests that meaning emerges through the dialogue between text and interpreter, bridging historical horizons (p. 126).
5. The Institutional Nature of Criticism
Raval highlights the institutional embeddedness of criticism, which shapes its methodologies and limitations. While institutions foster intellectual rigor, they also perpetuate outdated or restrictive practices (p. 127).
He calls for self-criticism within institutions to avoid reinforcing dogmatic or self-serving critical frameworks (p. 128).
6. Criticism’s Relation to Philosophy and History
The crisis in literary theory mirrors philosophical shifts from metaphysics to epistemology. Raval critiques the legacy of Enlightenment positivism, which sought universal, objective frameworks for understanding literature and culture (p. 129).
He argues for a historicized understanding of criticism, where theoretical insights are provisional and tied to specific cultural and historical contexts (p. 130).
Despite their differences, deconstruction and New Criticism share a focus on close textual analysis. However, Raval warns against conflating their methods, as each operates on distinct theoretical principles (p. 131).
He critiques deconstruction’s overemphasis on negative critique, advocating for a more constructive engagement with literature (p. 132).
8. Historicizing Literary Theory
Raval stresses the importance of understanding the historical obsessions of literary traditions. He argues that these insights can enrich contemporary criticism by revealing how foundationalist philosophies continue to influence modern practices (p. 133).
The historicizing approach allows for a nuanced engagement with past and present critical challenges without discarding valuable traditional insights (p. 134).
9. Conclusion: Towards Provisional Theories
The perceived crisis in literary theory stems from the loss of a unified, foundational framework. However, Raval views this as an opportunity for richer, more flexible approaches to criticism (p. 135).
He advocates for theories as provisional tools shaped by specific contexts, enabling critics to address contemporary cultural and literary concerns while remaining open to historical perspectives (p. 136).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
Term/Concept
Definition/Description
Context in Raval’s Analysis
Hermeneutic of Suspicion
An interpretive approach that questions established beliefs, assumptions, and the “truth” of texts.
Raval contrasts this with the “hermeneutic of belief,” highlighting its role in challenging traditional epistemologies (p. 120).
Indeterminacy of Meaning
The idea that meanings are not fixed or absolute but fluid and contingent on interpretation and context.
Central to deconstruction, this challenges traditional theories that posit determinate and universal meanings (p. 121).
A theory emphasizing the reader’s role in constructing the meaning of a text.
Critiqued for its potential narcissism and overemphasis on the reader’s authority (p. 122).
Fusion of Horizons
Gadamer’s concept of understanding as a dialogue between the interpreter’s perspective and the text’s context.
A proposed resolution to the dichotomy between determinacy and indeterminacy in interpretation (p. 125).
Pragmatist Historicism
The approach of evaluating theories as tools suited to specific historical contexts rather than universal truths.
Advocated by Raval as a way to reconcile competing theoretical frameworks (p. 135).
Canonical Authority
The traditional notion of certain texts or interpretations as holding universal or timeless significance.
Raval critiques this as undermined by contemporary challenges to objectivity and determinacy (p. 120).
Contribution of “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Critique of Universalism in Traditional Literary Theories
Raval challenges the universalist ambitions of traditional theories like New Criticism and structuralism, arguing that their reliance on determinate meaning and objectivity is untenable in the face of postmodern critiques (Raval, 1986, p. 120).
He critiques their epistemological foundations, which are rooted in Enlightenment positivism, for failing to account for the historical and cultural contingency of meaning (p. 129).
Raval highlights Hans-Georg Gadamer’s concept of the historicity of understanding, emphasizing that meaning is shaped by a dialogue between the interpreter and the text, across historical horizons (p. 126).
This perspective counters the extremes of both traditional objectivism and radical indeterminacy by situating interpretation within historical and cultural contexts (p. 125).
3. Integration of Deconstruction’s Insights
While critical of deconstruction’s radical rejection of determinate meaning, Raval acknowledges its value in exposing the limitations of traditional epistemological frameworks (p. 122).
He credits deconstruction for destabilizing entrenched ideas about text, meaning, and critical authority, thereby fostering a broader interrogation of literary theory (p. 123).
4. Criticism as an Institutional Activity
Raval introduces the concept of criticism as an institutional practice, shaped by academic and socio-political contexts. This recognition shifts focus from purely theoretical concerns to the practical conditions under which criticism operates (p. 127).
He warns against the dogmatic practices within institutions that can stifle innovation, advocating for self-critical institutional reform (p. 128).
The article traces the evolution of structuralism, from its early universalist aims to its historicist turn, which acknowledged the temporality and fluidity of linguistic and cultural conventions (p. 124).
Raval underscores how this shift ultimately paved the way for post-structuralist critiques, making structuralism a bridge between modernism and postmodernism (p. 124).
6. Historicizing Criticism
Raval emphasizes the importance of historicizing literary criticism, encouraging critics to contextualize their theoretical approaches within broader historical, cultural, and intellectual movements (p. 133).
He argues that understanding the historical obsessions of earlier critics and philosophers enriches contemporary theory by revealing the continuities and ruptures in critical traditions (p. 134).
7. Critique of Reader-Response Theory
Raval critiques certain forms of reader-response theory, particularly Stanley Fish’s emphasis on interpretive communities, as potentially self-referential and narcissistic (p. 122).
He highlights the tension between celebrating the reader’s authority and maintaining the coherence of critical traditions (p. 123).
8. Pragmatist Approach to Literary Theory
Raval advocates for a pragmatist and historicist approach, treating literary theories as provisional tools suited to specific contexts rather than as universal frameworks (p. 135).
This stance promotes flexibility and openness in critical practice, allowing for the coexistence of competing theories without necessitating their unification or hierarchy (p. 136).
9. Reaffirmation of Criticism’s Relevance
Raval counters the pessimism surrounding the “crisis” in contemporary literary theory by framing it as an opportunity for creative rethinking and innovation (p. 135).
He emphasizes the vitality of criticism in addressing contemporary cultural and intellectual challenges, even amidst theoretical fragmentation (p. 136).
Examples of Critiques Through “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
Literary Work
Type of Critique
Critique Framework
Discussion in Raval’s Work
Paradise Lost (John Milton)
Reader-Response Critique
Emphasizes the role of readers in reconstructing meaning and blurring boundaries between literature and criticism.
Geoffrey Hartman’s stance where the reader becomes the creator of the work is critiqued for undermining traditional authority (p. 122).
Hamlet (William Shakespeare)
Deconstructive Critique
Questions the certainty of meaning and highlights the indeterminacy of textual interpretation through the lens of deconstruction.
Discussed in relation to how radical critiques destabilize canonical interpretations of works like Hamlet (p. 122).
Paradise Lost (Revisited)
Institutional Critique
Focuses on how institutional frameworks shape the reception and interpretation of canonical texts.
Raval critiques institutionalized criticism for perpetuating certain interpretations and restricting alternative readings (p. 127).
Romantic Poetry (Various Authors)
Historical Critique
Examines the historical context and obsessions of Romantic poets to understand the evolution of literary theory and criticism.
Raval uses Romanticism to illustrate the persistence of foundationalist influences in modern literary practices (p. 133).
Criticism Against “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
1. Overemphasis on Crisis Without Concrete Solutions
While Raval highlights the crisis in contemporary literary theory, critics may argue that he does not provide sufficient actionable strategies for resolving the theoretical fragmentation he identifies.
2. Ambiguity in Balancing Historicity and Indeterminacy
Raval’s advocacy for Gadamer’s historicity of meaning as a middle ground between determinacy and indeterminacy might be seen as vague or insufficiently developed to address the extremes of deconstruction or foundationalism.
3. Limited Engagement with Practical Criticism
The discussion primarily focuses on theoretical debates and does not directly engage with how these theories can be applied to practical criticism of literary texts.
4. Underestimation of Deconstruction’s Constructive Potential
Critics might contend that Raval’s treatment of deconstruction focuses too heavily on its negative critique of meaning without fully exploring its contributions to enriching textual interpretation.
5. Institutional Critique Remains Underexplored
While Raval acknowledges the institutional nature of criticism, his analysis does not delve deeply into how specific institutional dynamics or politics shape literary theory and practice.
6. Neglect of Non-Western Literary Traditions
The article primarily focuses on Western literary traditions and theories, potentially overlooking how non-Western perspectives might enrich or challenge his arguments.
7. Potential Oversimplification of Reader-Response Theory
Raval critiques reader-response theories, such as Stanley Fish’s interpretive communities, for their narcissism, but this critique might be viewed as reductive, failing to recognize their broader contributions to understanding interpretive pluralism.
8. Insufficient Address of the Role of Technology in Criticism
Given the growing influence of digital humanities and technology on literary theory, the article’s lack of engagement with these contemporary trends might be seen as a limitation.
Representative Quotations from “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval with Explanation
“There is currently great anxiety among literary critics and theorists about literary criticism’s loss of identity…”
Highlights the existential crisis in literary theory due to challenges from deconstruction and indeterminacy, questioning its coherence as a discipline.
“The hermeneutic of suspicion emerges as an interpretative strategy, pitting itself against the hermeneutic of belief.”
Refers to the shift from traditional interpretation grounded in belief to suspicion, a hallmark of modern critical approaches like deconstruction and psychoanalysis.
“Structuralism’s original ambition to articulate universal conditions of meaning… had to be abandoned.”
Discusses the evolution of structuralism and its failure to sustain universalist claims, leading to post-structuralist critiques.
“Gadamer’s hermeneutic… shows literary meanings as products of a complex cultural transaction within interacting historical horizons.”
Highlights Gadamer’s contribution to historicism in literary theory, emphasizing the dialogic nature of interpretation over static objectivity.
“The proliferation of literary interpretations has led Jonathan Culler to separate primarily interpretative activity from a study of literature which would go beyond interpretation.”
Points to the dilemma in criticism about whether interpretation should transcend or remain central to literary studies.
“Radical theory takes unreason or negative reasoning as the strategy by which to deprive criticism of its self-confidence.”
Critiques the tendency in radical theories, like deconstruction, to embrace chaos and unreason, contrasting it with traditional rational approaches.
“Criticism is an institutional activity… unfortunate, ill-conceived, preposterous, or downright silly in the institution cannot be easily eliminated…”
Examines the institutionalized nature of criticism, suggesting its strengths and flaws are intertwined with academic structures and politics.
“The hermeneutic of indeterminacy… results in what Hayden White has aptly called the ‘absurdist moment’ in contemporary criticism.”
Explores the extreme outcomes of radical indeterminacy in literary theory, where meaning becomes completely fragmented.
“The crisis of contemporary literary theory consists not in the fact that no single theory has emerged… but in the fact that contemporary literary theory is unable to come to terms with the implications of a loss of an Archimedean position.”
Argues that the true crisis is not the absence of a unifying theory but the inability to navigate the loss of a foundational standpoint in criticism.
“We should not ask philosophy to perform a task it cannot perform, nor should we expect cultural or literary theory to perform it either.”
Calls for realistic expectations of theory, suggesting that criticism’s value lies in its provisional, historically contextual insights rather than in seeking ultimate foundations.
Suggested Readings: “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
Raval, Suresh. “Philosophy and the Crisis of Contemporary Literary Theory.” The Monist 69.1 (1986): 119-132.
“Literary Theory’ Theory’ and Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian first appeared in Wenxue pinglun (Literary Review) in 2008 and was translated and republished in Frontiers of Literary Studies in China in 2010.
Introduction: “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian
“Literary Theory’ Theory’ and Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian first appeared in Wenxue pinglun (Literary Review) in 2008 and was translated and republished in Frontiers of Literary Studies in China in 2010. This seminal article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolution of literary studies in the 20th century’ distinguishing between “Theory of Literature” (or “Literary Theory”)’ “Theory'” and “Post-Theory” within their distinct historical and cultural paradigms. Zhou Xian examines the shifts from modern formalism to postmodern French Theory and the reflexivity of post-theory’ emphasizing the interplay of literary’ aesthetic’ and political discourses. One of the article’s key insights is its argument that’ “Literary theory was formed within the framework of modern humanities’ emphasizing linguistic and aesthetic aspects’ but has since transformed into a discipline shaped by political and interdisciplinary currents.” This work is crucial for understanding the transitions in literary theory and its broader implications for the humanities’ marking the tensions between disciplinary specialization and interdisciplinary convergence.
Summary of “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian
Literary theory emerged as a product of modern disciplinary specialization‘ emphasizing the linguistic and aesthetic dimensions of literary studies (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 2).
Early frameworks’ such as René Wellek and Austin Warren’s Theory of Literature‘ differentiated literary theory’ literary criticism’ and literary history‘ situating literary theory as the study of principles and criteria distinct from the analysis of concrete works (Wellek & Warren’ 1984).
This framework elevated literary theory to a modern and systematic academic discipline grounded in the humanities.
The advent of French Theory in the 1960s challenged the aesthetic and linguistic focus of earlier literary theory by introducing interdisciplinary approaches’ including philosophy’ political theory’ and psychoanalysis (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 7).
Theory’ as described by Eagleton’ marked the decline of universal values associated with literature’ reflecting broader sociopolitical shifts and the rise of “grand theories” (Eagleton’ 1996′ p. 190).
The politics of theory became central’ with literary studies being redefined through its entanglement with issues of power’ identity’ and ideology.
3. Characteristics of Post-Theory
Post-theory reflects a departure from grand narratives’ embracing reflexivity and multiplicity. It critiques the universalism of earlier theories’ favoring localized and diverse approaches (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 14).
Derrida’s concept of self-reflexivity in theory exemplifies the shift to analyzing not just literature but also the underlying frameworks of its study: “Seeing sight itself” (Derrida’ 2004).
Post-theory responds to the over-politicization of literary studies’ advocating a return to aesthetics while addressing unresolved foundational questions like truth’ ethics’ and morality (Eagleton’ 2003).
4. Post-Theory and the Return to Aesthetic Values
Zhou critiques the loss of aesthetics in ideological approaches’ highlighting the need to reintegrate the sensual and symbolic dimensions of art (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 16).
Scholars such as Susan Sontag and Murray Krieger advocate for the “revenge of the aesthetic” against reductive theoretical paradigms’ emphasizing the unique experiential aspects of literature (Sontag’ 1989; Krieger’ 1992).
5. Institutional Challenges and Academic Reflexivity
The institutionalization of literary studies has turned theoretical practice into a commodity within academia. Zhou emphasizes the need for self-reflection in post-theory to critique this academic commercialization (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 17).
Post-theory also demands a critical return to the “repressed and excluded” aspects of previous theories’ envisioning theoretical exploration as an ongoing and dynamic process (Callus & Herbrechter’ 2004).
6. Relevance in Contemporary Contexts
Zhou situates the trajectory of literary studies within the broader transformations of modernity and postmodernity‘ asserting its enduring relevance in understanding cultural’ social’ and aesthetic phenomena.
Post-theory’ while acknowledging the limitations of grand narratives’ promotes an inclusive’ interdisciplinary paradigm for analyzing literature and culture (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 15).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian
A method of analysis that reveals the contradictions and instability of meaning within texts and systems of thought.
Key to Derrida’s critique of Western metaphysics and binary oppositions.
Human Sciences
Disciplines that study human behavior’ culture’ and society through qualitative and interpretive methods.
Differentiated from traditional humanities and natural sciences in Foucault’s framework.
Contribution of “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian to Literary Theory/Theories
Clarification of the Evolution of Literary Theory Zhou Xian outlines the development of literary theory across three distinct paradigms: modern literary theory (formalism)’ theory (interdisciplinary grand narratives)’ and post-theory (localized’ reflexive approaches) (Zhou’ 2010′ pp. 2–4).
This historical trajectory situates literary theory within broader cultural’ social’ and intellectual transformations.
Integration of Human Sciences into Theory The article highlights the shift from traditional humanities to human sciences‘ a discipline defined by Foucault that focuses on representation’ discourse’ and the coexistence of power and knowledge (Zhou’ 2010′ pp. 7–8).
This perspective expands literary studies into sociological’ psychological’ and historical contexts.
Critique of Universalism and Essentialism Zhou critiques the universal value systems of modern literary theory’ emphasizing the fragmentation and relativism introduced by postmodern and poststructuralist approaches (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 14).
Theories such as deconstruction and cultural studies dismantled grand narratives’ focusing on multiplicity and local contexts.
Contribution to Post-Theory Post-theory’s reflexive stance’ as discussed by Zhou’ advances the study of literature by examining the methodologies and assumptions underpinning literary theory itself (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 15).
It emphasizes small-scale’ localized theories over overarching’ hegemonic frameworks.
Reaffirmation of Aesthetic Values in Literary Studies Zhou stresses the importance of returning to the aesthetic dimensions of literature’ countering the politicization and trivialization seen in some ideological frameworks (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 16).
Inspired by thinkers like Susan Sontag and Murray Krieger’ the article calls for a balance between aesthetic and ideological concerns.
Advancement of Interdisciplinary Methodologies The inclusion of methodologies from disciplines such as philosophy’ political science’ and sociology enriches the scope of literary studies (Zhou’ 2010′ pp. 10–11).
The interdisciplinary nature of “Theory” aligns with contributions from figures like Derrida’ Foucault’ and Lacan.
Critique of Over-politicization in Theory The article critiques the politics of theory that often reduce literature to socio-political analyses’ advocating for a more nuanced engagement with text and context (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 13).
This reflects a broader call for theoretical plurality and depth.
Introduction of Reflexivity in Theory Post-theory’s focus on reflexivity’ or the self-critique of theoretical frameworks’ is highlighted as a significant contribution to modern literary studies (Zhou’ 2010′ pp. 14–15).
Reflexivity enables scholars to study not only literature but also the methodologies used to analyze it.
Recontextualization of French Theory and its Influence Zhou emphasizes the transformative impact of French Theory‘ particularly deconstruction and post-structuralism’ on modern literary theory (Zhou’ 2010′ pp. 7–8).
This contribution bridges the gap between linguistic-centered theories and broader cultural critiques.
Response to Institutional Challenges The article addresses the challenges posed by the institutionalization and commercialization of literary studies’ advocating for a theoretical framework that is self-aware and adaptable (Zhou’ 2010′ pp. 16–17).
This makes post-theory a tool for resisting the commodification of intellectual work.
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian
Literary Work
Theoretical Framework
Key Critique Through Zhou Xian’s Lens
References from Zhou Xian
Shakespeare’s Hamlet
Modern Literary Theory (Formalism)
Focuses on the aesthetic and linguistic elements’ emphasizing the structure and language of the play.
Zhou notes that modern literary theory prioritizes formalist analyses of texts’ focusing on intrinsic qualities (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 3).
James Joyce’s Ulysses
Theory (Interdisciplinary Approaches)
Interpreted through cultural’ political’ and psychoanalytic frameworks’ linking the text to broader issues of identity’ ideology’ and power.
Zhou highlights how theory incorporates external disciplines like psychoanalysis and Marxism into literary critiques (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 7).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart
Post-Theory (Localized and Reflexive Approaches)
Emphasizes the multiplicity of interpretations’ focusing on postcolonial themes and localized cultural contexts while avoiding universalist readings.
Zhou discusses post-theory’s embrace of diversity and rejection of grand narratives in favor of local context (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 15).
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse
Transition from Formalism to Theory
Critiqued through both aesthetic elements (modernism) and interdisciplinary approaches’ including feminist and psychoanalytic perspectives.
Zhou examines how theory bridges aesthetic and political dimensions in literary studies (Zhou’ 2010′ p. 10).
Criticism Against “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian
Overgeneralization of Historical Phases Zhou’s categorization of “literary theory'” “theory'” and “post-theory” into distinct historical phases may oversimplify the complex and overlapping developments within literary studies.
Limited Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives Despite acknowledging the global impact of theory’ Zhou’s analysis primarily focuses on Western traditions like French Theory and modernism’ leaving non-Western theoretical contributions underexplored.
Neglect of Specific Case Studies The article discusses broad theoretical paradigms but lacks concrete application of these frameworks to specific literary works’ which could illustrate the theories more effectively.
Ambiguity in the Definition of Post-Theory While Zhou emphasizes reflexivity and multiplicity’ the precise boundaries and methodologies of post-theory remain vague’ raising questions about its practical utility in literary analysis.
Underrepresentation of Contemporary Theories The article pays significant attention to structuralism’ poststructuralism’ and grand theories but does not engage deeply with emerging fields like digital humanities or ecocriticism.
Tension Between Aesthetic and Political Critiques Zhou advocates for a return to aesthetic values while critiquing the politicization of literary studies’ but this dual stance can seem contradictory or insufficiently reconciled.
Reliance on Established Thinkers The article heavily references canonical figures like Derrida’ Foucault’ and Eagleton’ potentially reinforcing dominant theoretical narratives without exploring less mainstream voices.
Inadequate Critique of Institutional Dynamics While Zhou critiques the commercialization of literary studies’ the discussion lacks actionable insights or solutions to address the institutional challenges faced by scholars today.
Excessive Theoretical Abstraction The highly abstract nature of Zhou’s discussion may limit its accessibility to readers unfamiliar with complex theoretical jargon or the nuances of literary studies.
Representative Quotations from “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian with Explanation
“The 20th century is regarded as an era of ‘theory’s empire’’ in which we witnessed the gradual intrusion of literary theory into various fields.”
This highlights how literary theory expanded its influence beyond literature’ becoming an interdisciplinary approach that impacted other domains’ such as philosophy and cultural studies.
“‘Theory of literature’ is a higher-level theoretical study which could encompass the theory of literary criticism and literary history.”
Zhou delineates theory of literature as a broad’ systematic approach to literature that incorporates critical and historical perspectives’ distinguishing it from narrower methodologies like formalist literary criticism.
“Literary theory emerged as a fully modern concept because it is more accurate than its traditional counterparts such as ‘poetics.’”
The concept of literary theory evolved in the modern era to address broader concerns’ moving beyond traditional poetics that focused narrowly on poetry to encompass diverse literary forms and their principles.
“Contemporary literary theory comes into its own in such events as the application of Saussurean linguistics to the literary text.”
This underscores the pivotal role of structural linguistics’ as introduced by Saussure’ in shaping modern literary theory and providing tools for analyzing the underlying structures of literary works.
“Theory has become impure as it engages the social and political world through the reading of literature.”
This reflects the politicization of theory’ where literary studies have expanded to interrogate social’ cultural’ and political phenomena’ moving beyond traditional aesthetics.
“The emergence of theory is the moment when a practice begins to curve upon itself’ so as to scrutinize its own conditions of possibility.”
Zhou explains the self-reflexive nature of theory’ emphasizing how theoretical frameworks critically examine their own assumptions’ methodologies’ and relevance.
“‘Post-theory’ marks the decline of grand narratives but still bears some features of grand theory in its own paradigm.”
This statement captures the transition to post-theory’ characterized by skepticism towards overarching explanatory systems while still maintaining a theoretical lens for analysis.
“Theory has completely exposed that the so-called aesthetic and art value is only the function of some particular ideology.”
Zhou critiques traditional notions of aesthetic value’ suggesting that they are not universal but instead shaped by ideological contexts and power structures.
“Post-theory puts more weight on diversity and locality’ favoring neither the monotonous linguistic mode nor the interdisciplinary mode of postmodern theory.”
Post-theory emphasizes pluralistic and localized approaches’ avoiding the reductive tendencies of earlier frameworks while allowing for diverse perspectives and smaller-scale analyses.
“With the focus shifted to the grand problems’ literature as a symbolic social construction gradually loses its aesthetic features in ideological analyses.”
Zhou critiques how excessive focus on ideology in literary studies risks overshadowing the aesthetic and artistic qualities of literature’ calling for a more balanced approach that integrates aesthetics with critical theory.
Suggested Readings: “Literary Theory’ Theory’ And Post-Theory” by Zhou Xian
Zhou’ Xian. “Literary theory’ theory’ and post-theory.” Frontiers of Literary Studies in China 4 (2010): 1-18.
HUEHLS’ MITCHUM. “The Post-Theory Theory Novel.” Contemporary Literature‘ vol. 56′ no. 2′ 2015’ pp. 280–310. JSTOR‘ http://www.jstor.org/stable/24735009. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
FLISFEDER’ MATTHEW. “BETWEEN THEORY AND POST-THEORY; OR’ SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK IN FILM STUDIES AND OUT.” Revue Canadienne d’Études Cinématographiques / Canadian Journal of Film Studies‘ vol. 20′ no. 2′ 2011’ pp. 75–94. JSTOR‘ http://www.jstor.org/stable/24411838. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
