“Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Spring, 1973), published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

"Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Spring, 1973), published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This seminal essay explores the intersection of structuralism and ideology, addressing the dual nature of ideology as both a tool for deconstructing societal norms and a self-critical framework that acknowledges its own ideological limitations. Culler critiques the structuralist impulse to expose hidden cultural conventions while simultaneously grappling with the infinite regress of examining its own assumptions. The essay underscores the paradox that structuralist methods, aimed at revealing “truth” beneath ideological constructs, inevitably construct their own ideologies. Culler’s work is pivotal in literary theory for its exploration of the constraints and freedoms inherent in structuralist critique, emphasizing the productive tension between the pursuit of analytical rigor and the infinite play of meaning. This argument has profoundly influenced discussions on the methodology and purpose of literary analysis, situating structuralism as both a critique of and participant in ideological systems.

Summary of “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Dual Nature of Ideology in Structuralism
    Culler identifies a dual approach to ideology within structuralism: it functions as a tool for revealing hidden societal norms (demystification) and as a framework to critique itself (Culler 471). Structuralists adopt a Marxist view of ideology as false consciousness, exposing concealed historical roots of dominant ideas. However, self-criticism leads to an infinite regress, as structuralist methods themselves become ideological (Culler 472).
  2. Self-Analysis as a Structuralist Goal
    Rather than seeking foundational truths, structuralists turn the act of self-analysis into an end in itself. Inspired by Hegelian dialectics, they prioritize the “play” of constructing and deconstructing theoretical frameworks, rejecting the notion of a definitive theory (Culler 473). This approach, as Julia Kristeva remarks, frames semiotics as inherently self-critical, focusing on the ideological gestures it critiques (Culler 473).
  3. Structuralism’s Demystification Mission
    Prominent figures like Barthes, Lévi-Strauss, and Foucault use structuralist analyses to uncover how societal norms and scientific conventions appear “natural” while masking their historical and cultural contingencies (Culler 474). For example, Foucault analyzes the “naturalized” conventions underlying sciences, and Barthes critiques bourgeois norms as ideological constructs (Culler 475).
  4. Limitations of a “Science of Literature”
    Structuralist poetics, though insightful, confronts its ideological constraints. Barthes’ vision of a “science of literature,” aiming to uncover how meanings are generated, encounters opposition for its prescriptive nature. Critics argue that literature’s diverse interpretations resist such formal categorization (Culler 476). Structuralism’s reliance on the notion of a stable “sign” as the basis for analysis is undermined by literature’s historical and contingent nature (Culler 476).
  5. The Central Problem of Structure
    The concept of “structure” in literary analysis, as highlighted by Derrida, is teleological—it presupposes a purpose or “center” governing meaning (Culler 477). Structural analysis depends on this center, yet granting it privileged status imposes ideological constraints, excluding alternative perspectives and meanings (Culler 478).
  6. Infinite Play of Meaning
    Structuralism shifts toward exploring the limitless potential of meaning in texts. Saussure’s theory of language as a system of differences, devoid of intrinsic terms, underscores how meaning arises through relational dynamics rather than fixed definitions (Culler 479). This infinite openness contrasts with traditional approaches that impose restrictive interpretative boundaries (Culler 480).
  7. Challenges in Interpretation
    Although structuralism promotes the freedom to create meaning, it faces practical constraints. As Derrida and Foucault observe, the production of meaning is simultaneously governed by restrictive conventions, which limit interpretative possibilities (Culler 481). Attempts to eliminate ideological constraints inadvertently impose new ones, highlighting the impossibility of true liberation from ideology (Culler 482).
  8. Embracing Ideological Constraints
    Culler concludes that instead of seeking to transcend ideology, scholars should engage with it critically. Both the conventions analyzed and the tools of analysis are embedded within cultural systems. Structuralism, despite its circularity, remains a vital framework for understanding the interplay between ideology and meaning in literature (Culler 482).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationReference in Text
Ideology as False ConsciousnessA Marxist concept used by structuralists to describe how ideologies conceal historical origins and justify societal norms as natural or inevitable.Culler, p. 471
Self-Critique in StructuralismStructuralism’s practice of examining its own assumptions to avoid being labeled as ideological, leading to an infinite regress of self-analysis.Culler, p. 472
DemystificationThe process of exposing concealed conventions and ideologies within cultural practices and texts.Culler, p. 474
Science of LiteratureBarthes’ proposal of a systematic method to uncover how meanings in literature are generated according to symbolic and cultural logics.Culler, p. 475
The Center in StructureA fixed principle or endpoint that governs the structure of a text, shaping its interpretation and limiting the play of meanings.Culler, p. 477
Infinite Play of MeaningStructuralist acknowledgment of the endless relational possibilities in language and literature, rejecting fixed interpretations or absolute truths.Culler, p. 479
Geno-Text vs. Pheno-TextKristeva’s distinction between the geno-text (potential and latent signifying possibilities) and pheno-text (actual realized meanings in a text).Culler, p. 477
LogocentrismDerrida’s term for a metaphysical bias that privileges a fixed center or ultimate truth in language, which structuralism challenges by emphasizing relational differences.Culler, p. 477
Autotelic DevelopmentThe idea that structuralism values its own self-reflective processes and theoretical evolution over achieving definitive conclusions or solutions.Culler, p. 473
Interpretation as Active CreationStructuralism’s view of interpretation as an active engagement with texts, focusing on the generation of new meanings rather than recovering a pre-existing truth.Culler, p. 480
Constraints in Meaning ProductionThe interplay of restrictive conventions and the generation of meaning, which highlights that even creative interpretation relies on specific cultural and linguistic constraints.Culler, p. 481
Ideological CircularityThe acknowledgment that structuralism cannot escape ideological constraints because its own methods and critiques are embedded within ideological systems.Culler, p. 482
Contribution of “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Contribution to Structuralism

  • Culler expands structuralist thought by addressing its inherent contradictions, particularly its simultaneous critique of ideologies and susceptibility to ideological labeling (Culler, p. 472).
  • He redefines structuralism as an activity rooted in “infinite play,” emphasizing its dynamic, self-critical nature rather than its pursuit of definitive conclusions (Culler, p. 473).

2. Insights into Semiotics

  • Culler connects semiotics with ideology, arguing that semiotics must function as a critique of itself, a notion drawn from Julia Kristeva’s work (Culler, p. 473).
  • He emphasizes the concept of the “geno-text,” highlighting latent and infinite possibilities of meaning in language and literature, a key theoretical advancement in semiotics (Culler, p. 477).

3. Application to Deconstruction

  • Drawing on Derrida, Culler critiques the reliance on a “center” in structural analysis, linking structuralism’s methods to deconstruction’s rejection of logocentrism (Culler, p. 477).
  • He explores the idea that structures are inherently unstable, with meaning arising from the relational play of differences, aligning with deconstructionist principles (Culler, p. 478).

4. Challenge to Marxist Criticism

  • While acknowledging the Marxist notion of ideology as false consciousness, Culler critiques its dependence on a singular “truth” and contrasts it with structuralism’s openness to multiple interpretations (Culler, p. 471).

5. Impact on Reader-Response Theory

  • Culler’s emphasis on the active role of interpretation and meaning creation situates the reader as a crucial participant, prefiguring key ideas in reader-response theory (Culler, p. 480).
  • He asserts that interpretation is not about recovering authorial intent but engaging in the productive play of meanings enabled by textual structures (Culler, p. 480).

6. Relevance to Poststructuralism

  • Culler’s critique of structuralism’s ideological constraints anticipates poststructuralist skepticism toward any system claiming universal applicability (Culler, p. 482).
  • He highlights structuralism’s inability to escape ideology, reinforcing poststructuralist notions of the inseparability of discourse and power (Culler, p. 482).

7. Reframing Literary Studies

  • By integrating structuralist, semiotic, and deconstructive frameworks, Culler provides a model for literary analysis that is self-aware, dynamic, and ideologically nuanced (Culler, p. 482).

8. Influence on Cultural Criticism

  • Culler’s discussion of how literature and culture naturalize ideological constructs opens pathways for cultural criticism to deconstruct societal norms (Culler, p. 474).
  • He draws on Barthes and Foucault to show how cultural systems perpetuate dominant ideologies under the guise of “natural laws” (Culler, p. 474).
Examples of Critiques Through “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkConcept from CullerExample of Critique Using Culler’s FrameworkReference in Culler’s Essay
Shakespeare’s HamletDemystification of IdeologyAnalyzing how Hamlet naturalizes royal power and familial loyalty as inevitable, masking the historical and ideological roots of monarchy.Culler, p. 474
James Joyce’s UlyssesInfinite Play of MeaningExploring the text’s open-ended linguistic play, where language exceeds fixed meanings, engaging the reader in active interpretation.Culler, p. 480
Roland Barthes’ MythologiesCultural Norms as Ideological ConstructsExamining how societal myths, such as those in advertising or fashion, are treated as “natural” but are ideological products of bourgeois culture.Culler, p. 474
Mallarmé’s Un Coup de DésGeno-Text and Relational DifferencesInvestigating how Mallarmé’s poetry resists conventional interpretations, emphasizing latent structures and infinite linguistic possibilities.Culler, p. 477
Criticism Against “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler
  • Overemphasis on Infinite Regress:
    Critics argue that Culler’s focus on the infinite regress of self-analysis in structuralism creates a paradox, where structuralism undermines its credibility by failing to establish any stable methodological ground.
  • Ambiguity in Resolving Ideological Constraints:
    While Culler acknowledges structuralism’s inability to escape ideology, he does not provide a clear resolution to this limitation, leaving the critique theoretically unresolved.
  • Insufficient Practical Application:
    The essay is critiqued for being overly theoretical, with limited guidance on how to practically apply its insights to specific literary works or broader cultural analyses.
  • Neglect of Reader’s Experience:
    Some critics argue that Culler’s emphasis on structuralism’s ideological framework sidelines the lived experience and subjective engagement of readers with texts.
  • Undermining Structuralist Foundations:
    By focusing on the ideological limitations and circularity of structuralism, the essay is seen as undermining the validity of the structuralist approach itself, leaving it vulnerable to criticism from more traditional methodologies.
  • Overdependence on Derridean Concepts:
    Culler’s heavy reliance on Derrida’s notions, such as the critique of logocentrism and the play of meaning, is viewed as a move that aligns structuralism too closely with deconstruction, potentially overshadowing its distinct contributions.
  • Resistance to Practical Criticism:
    The essay’s abstract nature and dense theoretical language make it inaccessible for scholars seeking practical tools for textual analysis, limiting its appeal outside academic theory.
Representative Quotations from “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“An ideology is a theory which justifies particular economic, political, and intellectual practices by concealing their historical origins…” (Culler, p. 471).This defines ideology as a mechanism for naturalizing practices, making them appear inherent rather than constructed. It reflects structuralism’s concern with demystifying such naturalizations.
“The goal is not the construction of the greatest circle but the infinite play of circle-building” (Culler, p. 472).Structuralism values the process of self-reflection and critique, emphasizing dynamic inquiry over definitive conclusions.
“Structuralists have tried to make the activity of self-analysis and self-transcendence a goal in itself” (Culler, p. 472).This highlights structuralism’s commitment to critiquing its own methods, accepting that it cannot achieve absolute objectivity.
“The structure is commanded by a particular end; it is recognized as that which contributes to this end” (Culler, p. 474).Culler critiques the teleological nature of structural analysis, which assumes a predefined purpose or center for structures.
“An intuitive understanding of the poem functions as the ‘center,’ governing the play of forms” (Culler, p. 475).This illustrates how literary interpretations often rely on preexisting notions, which themselves reflect ideological assumptions.
“The fear that concepts which governed the analysis of meaning might be attacked as ideological premises…” (Culler, p. 477).Structuralists’ self-criticism arises from their awareness that their own frameworks may also be ideological, leading to perpetual questioning of foundational assumptions.
“Interpretation is not a matter of recovering some meaning which lies… behind the work” (Culler, p. 478).Culler argues that literary analysis should focus on the multiplicity of meanings and the interpretive process rather than seeking a single “true” meaning.
“The absence of any ultimate or transcendent meaning opens an unbounded space for the play of signification” (Culler, p. 479).Drawing on Derrida, this points to the infinite potential for meaning within texts due to the absence of fixed centers or ultimate truths.
“Without restrictive rules there would be no meaning whatsoever” (Culler, p. 481).Culler acknowledges that while structuralism critiques constraints, some level of structural coherence is essential for meaning to exist.
“Rather than try to get outside ideology we must remain resolutely within it” (Culler, p. 482).Culler concludes that the study of ideology requires engagement with, rather than avoidance of, its influence, as ideology is an inescapable part of culture and interpretation.
Suggested Readings: “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Culler, Jonathan. “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure.” New Literary History, vol. 4, no. 3, 1973, pp. 471–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468530. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  2. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  3. Kavanagh, Thomas M. “Godard’s Revolution: The Politics of Meta-Cinema.” Diacritics, vol. 3, no. 2, 1973, pp. 49–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/464537. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  4. Shumway, David R. “How New Literary History Became a Theory Journal.” Symplokē, vol. 27, no. 1–2, 2019, pp. 459–64. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5250/symploke.27.1-2.0459. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

“Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique

“Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi first appeared in Feminist Review (No. 11, Sexuality) in the summer of 1982, published by Palgrave Macmillan Journals.

"Jealousy and Sexual Difference" by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi

“Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi first appeared in Feminist Review (No. 11, Sexuality) in the summer of 1982, published by Palgrave Macmillan Journals. It explores the intersections of jealousy, psychoanalysis, and gender, interrogating how jealousy manifests differently across sexes and is deeply embedded in patriarchal structures. Moi critiques the reductionist tendencies in sociological, psychoanalytic, and popular discourses on jealousy, arguing that these interpretations are often shaped by ideological assumptions about sexual difference. By engaging with Freud’s layered analysis of jealousy and Klein’s theories on early childhood development, Moi highlights how jealousy is socially conditioned and varies in expression: depressive and self-critical in women, aggressive and paranoid in men. This work is pivotal in feminist literary theory as it underscores the importance of contextualizing psychological phenomena like jealousy within the frameworks of gendered social norms and historical power dynamics.

Summary of “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi
  1. Historical Perspectives on Jealousy
    Toril Moi explores the under-examined but pervasive theme of jealousy in academic and cultural discourse, emphasizing its normalization in historical contexts. Drawing on Freud, she highlights how jealousy often leads to extreme emotional states like violence and madness: “Jealousy is a notoriously dangerous passion” (Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 53). Moi critiques the lack of comprehensive scholarly focus on jealousy, attributing it to cultural shifts that render jealousy an unfashionable topic.
  2. Jealousy and Sexual Difference
    The essay examines how cultural and academic interpretations of jealousy are shaped by gender assumptions. Sociologists like Edward Westermarck and Kingsley Davis associate male jealousy with ownership and societal rules regarding property, particularly the sexual possession of women (Moi, p. 55). Conversely, clinical psychiatrists and popular writers often depict women as more emotionally jealous, reflecting societal biases.
  3. Psychoanalytic Layers of Jealousy
    Moi leverages Freud’s three layers of jealousy—normal, projected, and delusional. Freud argues that jealousy stems from unconscious conflicts, often tied to repression and rivalries: “Normal jealousy… is compounded of grief… and of enmity against the successful rival” (Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 57). Moi critiques Freud’s male-centered case studies, suggesting they fail to fully address female jealousy’s complexity.
  4. Klein’s Insights on Early Development
    Melanie Klein’s theories on infant relationships emphasize the role of the mother in shaping early emotional experiences, including jealousy. Moi notes that women’s jealousy often reflects these early precedipal dynamics, where the mother is simultaneously an object of love and hostility (Moi, p. 59). In contrast, men’s jealousy is often oedipal, tied to rivalries with the father figure.
  5. Social Context of Jealousy
    Moi argues that jealousy is not merely psychological but deeply entrenched in societal structures. Women’s dependency on men and the double standards surrounding male infidelity create a fertile ground for feminine jealousy. Moi contends, “Jealousy is not a stable, unchanging phenomenon; it changes with society” (Moi, p. 66).
  6. Gendered Expressions of Aggression
    Jealousy manifests differently between genders. Men’s jealousy often leads to aggression against partners, while women’s jealousy is more likely to target rivals or manifest as depressive feelings (Moi, p. 65). Moi critiques the patriarchal framing of women as inherently more jealous, arguing that societal conditions, not biology, fuel these patterns.
  7. Concluding Reflections
    Moi concludes that jealousy, particularly in patriarchal contexts, reinforces existing power imbalances between men and women. While men’s jealousy often dominates through violence or control, women’s jealousy is pathologized, reflecting societal norms that devalue women’s emotional responses (Moi, p. 68).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationSource/Reference in Text
Normal JealousyA jealousy type derived from grief over potential loss, narcissistic injury, and rivalry.Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 57
Projected JealousyJealousy stemming from repressed impulses toward infidelity, projected onto one’s partner.Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 57
Delusional JealousyPathological jealousy with origins in repressed homosexuality, manifesting in paranoia.Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 58
Precedipal DynamicsEarly infant experiences with the mother, encompassing love and hostility.Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 59
Oedipal ComplexA stage of sexual differentiation where boys and girls face distinct emotional conflicts.Freud and Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 60
L’Amour CaptatifA possessive form of love seeking total control over the loved object.Lagache, qtd. in Moi, p. 64
L’Amour OblatifA self-effacing love that idealizes the loved object as supreme and unquestionable.Lagache, qtd. in Moi, p. 64
Paranoid PositionA developmental stage where infants see objects (like the mother) as good or bad.Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 59
Depressive PositionA stage where infants internalize loved objects and experience guilt for harming them.Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 59
Gendered Aggression in JealousyMen’s jealousy often leads to partner violence; women’s jealousy targets rivals or depresses them.Moi, pp. 65-66
Jealousy as Social ConstructJealousy varies across cultures and reflects societal norms, ideologies, and power dynamics.Moi, pp. 65-66
Homosexual Component of JealousyFreud’s theory that jealousy often involves repressed homosexual desires or projections.Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 58
Sexual Property ModelThe notion that jealousy is tied to societal rules about ownership and control of women.Kingsley Davis, qtd. in Moi, p. 55
Masculine and Feminine JealousyMasculine jealousy is aggressive and paranoid (oedipal), while feminine jealousy is depressive (precedipal).Moi, pp. 59-60
Contribution of “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories
  • Integration of Psychoanalytic Frameworks in Feminist Theory
    Moi bridges Freud’s psychoanalytic theories of jealousy and Melanie Klein’s developmental psychology to reveal gendered differences in emotional experiences, enriching feminist interpretations of psychoanalytic literature (Moi, pp. 57-60).
  • Critique of Patriarchal Norms in Emotional Constructs
    By exposing how jealousy is influenced by patriarchal ideologies that treat women as property, Moi contributes to feminist critiques of emotional and social norms embedded in literature (Moi, p. 55).
  • Precedipal Dynamics in Feminine Jealousy
    Moi’s application of Klein’s theory to feminine jealousy emphasizes early emotional and mother-daughter relationships, highlighting precedipal influences that often go unexplored in traditional psychoanalytic and literary readings (Moi, pp. 59-60).
  • Reframing Jealousy as a Social Construct
    Moi underscores that jealousy is not an inherent or universal emotion but shaped by cultural and historical contexts, offering a critical lens for examining literary characters and themes across different societies (Moi, pp. 65-66).
  • Distinction Between Masculine and Feminine Jealousy in Literature
    The analysis of jealousy as oedipal (masculine) versus precedipal (feminine) offers a nuanced framework for interpreting character motivations and plot structures in literature (Moi, pp. 59-60).
  • Intersection of Gender, Power, and Emotions in Narrative Analysis
    Moi reveals how jealousy in literature often reinforces or challenges societal power dynamics, particularly in narratives centered on infidelity or romantic conflict (Moi, p. 66).
  • Critique of Reductionism in Popular and Scholarly Discourses
    Moi critiques the simplistic gender essentialism prevalent in sociological, psychiatric, and literary interpretations of jealousy, advocating for more nuanced readings (Moi, pp. 54-55).
  • Contribution to Feminist Literary Criticism
    Moi’s essay demonstrates how psychoanalytic theories can be reinterpreted to align with feminist goals, challenging traditional male-centric narratives in literature (Moi, p. 68).
Examples of Critiques Through “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi
Literary WorkCritique Through Moi’s FrameworkKey Theoretical Concepts Applied
Othello by William ShakespeareOthello’s paranoia and violent jealousy reflect the masculine, oedipalized jealousy Moi identifies as aggressive and paranoid. Desdemona’s role as an object of possession ties to patriarchal norms of sexual property.Masculine Jealousy (oedipal), Sexual Property Model (Moi, pp. 55, 64)
Madame Bovary by Gustave FlaubertEmma Bovary’s feelings of dissatisfaction and jealousy towards others stem from a precedipal sense of lack and loss of love, aligning with Moi’s insights on feminine jealousy.Feminine Jealousy (precedipal), Precedipal Dynamics (Moi, pp. 59-60)
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott FitzgeraldTom Buchanan’s jealousy of Gatsby exemplifies masculine aggression and the patriarchal desire to control Daisy as a sexual property, while Daisy’s passive role reflects societal expectations of women.Masculine Jealousy, Gendered Aggression in Jealousy (Moi, pp. 55-56, 65)
Wuthering Heights by Emily BrontëCatherine and Heathcliff’s tumultuous relationship can be analyzed through Moi’s distinction between l’amour captatif and l’amour oblatif, with jealousy fueling possessiveness and destruction.L’Amour Captatif, L’Amour Oblatif (Moi, pp. 64-65)
Criticism Against “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi
  • Overreliance on Psychoanalytic Frameworks
    Moi’s analysis heavily relies on Freudian and Kleinian psychoanalysis, which some critics argue is outdated and lacks empirical support for its theories on gender and jealousy.
  • Limited Intersectional Perspective
    The essay does not sufficiently address how race, class, or sexual orientation intersect with jealousy, focusing predominantly on gender within patriarchal contexts.
  • Potential for Essentializing Gender Differences
    While Moi critiques essentialist views, her analysis of masculine (oedipal) and feminine (precedipal) jealousy risks reinforcing binary and deterministic views of gendered emotional experiences.
  • Underdeveloped Social and Historical Contextualization
    Moi acknowledges the role of social and historical factors in shaping jealousy but does not deeply explore specific historical or cultural variations, limiting the scope of her sociological insights.
  • Neglect of Alternative Theoretical Perspectives
    The essay does not engage extensively with non-psychoanalytic theories, such as cognitive or evolutionary psychology, which could offer broader explanations for jealousy beyond psychoanalysis.
  • Lack of Practical Literary Applications
    Although Moi outlines robust theoretical insights, the essay could include more explicit applications of her framework to specific literary texts to demonstrate its critical utility.
  • Ambiguity in Addressing Morality and Agency
    Moi’s analysis of jealousy as shaped by patriarchy does not fully explore the moral or individual agency aspects of jealousy, leaving certain ethical questions about actions driven by jealousy unresolved.
Representative Quotations from “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Jealousy is a notoriously dangerous passion and constitutes a well-recognised motive for crimes of violence, particularly of a gynocidal nature.”Moi emphasizes the destructive power of jealousy, linking it to violence, especially against women. This frames jealousy as both a personal and societal issue, with implications rooted in patriarchal structures.
“Most authors who have written on jealousy are extremely interested in the question of sexual difference.”This sets up Moi’s exploration of how jealousy is perceived and analyzed differently for men and women, signaling her critique of essentialist views on gender and jealousy.
“For Darwin, wives obviously do not belong to the race of ‘man,’ and therefore only men are jealous.”Moi critiques Darwin’s androcentric perspective, which aligns jealousy with male ownership, reflecting patriarchal ideologies that deny women agency and autonomy in relationships.
“Jealousy will provoke a depressive reaction in women, and an aggressive or even paranoid reaction in men.”Moi draws on psychoanalytic theories to differentiate the emotional expressions of jealousy between genders, linking it to societal expectations and psychological development stages.
“Women in patriarchal society must learn how to live with feelings of loss and lack of self-esteem.”This underscores the structural inequalities women face in patriarchal systems, where societal norms diminish women’s value outside relationships, perpetuating internalized feelings of inadequacy.
“Freud distinguishes between what he calls three layers of jealousy: 1) competitive or normal, 2) projected, and 3) delusional jealousy.”Moi uses Freud’s framework to provide a nuanced psychoanalytic understanding of jealousy, bridging theoretical and emotional dimensions of the phenomenon.
“The jealous man directs his aggression towards the beloved woman, and in extreme cases (crime passionnel) he may kill her.”This highlights the extreme manifestations of male jealousy as influenced by patriarchal notions of possession, contrasting it with the depressive tendencies often seen in women’s jealousy.
“The problem seems to be feminine jealousy, since there is no reason to assume that Freud was wrong in his outline of masculine jealousy.”Moi critiques Freud’s androcentric bias while acknowledging his insights into jealousy, using this to frame her own analysis of feminine jealousy and its precedipal roots.
“Jealousy is not a stable, unchanging phenomenon; it changes with society.”Moi situates jealousy within social and historical contexts, rejecting universalist explanations and emphasizing its variability based on cultural and structural shifts.
“The jealous woman turns her aggression towards her own ego, and this, of course, leads to depression.”Moi explores the internalized nature of feminine jealousy in patriarchal systems, contrasting it with the externalized aggression seen in male jealousy, thereby critiquing societal expectations and gender norms that shape emotional responses.
Suggested Readings: “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi
  1. Moi, Toril. “Jealousy and Sexual Difference.” Feminist Review, no. 11, 1982, pp. 53–68. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394827. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  2. Moi, Toril. “Representation of Patriarchy: Sexuality and Epistemology in Freud’s ‘Dora.'” Feminist Review, no. 9, 1981, pp. 60–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394915. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  3. Moi, Toril. “From Femininity to Finitude: Freud, Lacan, and Feminism, Again.” Signs, vol. 29, no. 3, 2004, pp. 841–78. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/380630. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.

“Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique

“Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi first appeared in Cultural Critique (No. 9, Spring 1988, pp. 3–22), published by the University of Minnesota Press.

"Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style" by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

“Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi first appeared in Cultural Critique (No. 9, Spring 1988, pp. 3–22), published by the University of Minnesota Press. This seminal work explores the intersections of feminism and postmodernist theory, offering a critical examination of recent feminist criticism in the United States, particularly its engagement with French theoretical frameworks. Moi contrasts the materialist feminist traditions of Britain and Scandinavia with the French-inspired American feminist critiques, such as Alice Jardine’s Gynesis and Jane Gallop’s Reading Lacan. She addresses the tensions between feminist politics and postmodernism, questioning whether postmodern feminism can reconcile its theoretical critiques of patriarchal structures with tangible political objectives. Moi’s essay is pivotal in literary theory for its critique of the depoliticization of feminist discourse within postmodernist paradigms, advocating instead for a politicized, inclusive approach to feminist theory that navigates the contradictions of equality and difference without capitulating to patriarchal binaries. Her work remains influential in feminist literary criticism for its depth of analysis and insistence on the material and ideological underpinnings of feminist struggles.

Summary of “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

1. Intersections of Feminism and Postmodernism

  • Moi critiques the relationship between feminism and postmodernism, highlighting the tensions in blending these frameworks. Postmodernism’s rejection of metanarratives, such as feminism, raises the question of compatibility. Moi writes, “At first glance, feminism and postmodernism would seem to be strange bedfellows indeed” (Moi 6). This contradiction forms the crux of her analysis, especially in the context of French-inspired feminist criticism.

2. Feminist Criticism Across Cultures

  • Moi positions herself as a socialist feminist rooted in British and Scandinavian traditions, contrasting this with American feminist discourse. She notes, “Socialist feminism in its various forms has been the dominant trend in British and Scandinavian feminism” (Moi 4). This geographical divergence underscores the need for transnational dialogue in feminist criticism.

3. The Impossibility of Feminism

  • Moi introduces the paradoxical nature of feminism, arguing that its ultimate goal is self-abolition in a post-patriarchal world. She states, “Feminism as defined above is an impossible undertaking” (Moi 5). The tension between advocating for equality and celebrating difference highlights inherent contradictions, leading her to propose a politicized feminist theory.

4. Postfeminism and Deconstruction

  • Drawing on Julia Kristeva’s ideas, Moi discusses the “third space” of feminism, which deconstructs binary oppositions while navigating patriarchal constraints. She critiques Kristeva’s utopian ideal of interweaving equality and difference, stating, “Simply sitting on the fence will never demolish patriarchy” (Moi 7). Moi calls for an active engagement with these contradictions.

5. Analysis of Key Texts

  • Moi examines Gynesis by Alice Jardine and Reading Lacan by Jane Gallop as exemplars of postmodern feminist discourse. She critiques Jardine’s abstraction of feminism into an aestheticized concept devoid of political struggle: “Jardine’s definition empties feminism of any agonistic content” (Moi 10). Gallop’s Lacanian approach is similarly interrogated for its universalization of castration, which Moi argues erases gendered power imbalances.

6. Postmodernism’s Limitations for Feminism

  • Moi critiques postmodern feminism for its abstract focus on Otherness, cautioning that such theorization risks perpetuating patriarchal narratives. She asserts, “The promotion and valorization of Otherness will never liberate the oppressed” (Moi 12). Without grounding in material analysis, postmodern approaches fail to address systemic oppression.

7. Stylistic and Political Commitments

  • The essay underscores the relationship between style and politics. Moi challenges Gallop’s notion that a specific style can encapsulate feminist politics, emphasizing, “To take up a style is to take up a position” (Moi 22). She advocates for historically contextualized feminist interventions.

8. Broader Implications

  • Moi situates her critique within ongoing feminist debates, emphasizing the necessity of a materialist feminist theory. She acknowledges the contributions of scholars like Gayatri Spivak, whose work bridges poststructuralist theory and anti-imperialist feminism. Moi writes, “Spivak’s textual and theoretical project takes the risks of the tightrope walker without a net” (Moi 20).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationContext/Usage in the Essay
PostmodernismA theoretical approach that challenges universal truths and metanarratives, emphasizing the fragmented, subjective nature of knowledge and identity.Moi critiques postmodernism’s rejection of metanarratives, arguing that it complicates feminist political goals by rendering feminism itself a problematic or repressive narrative (Moi 6).
Socialist FeminismA feminist framework that integrates Marxist analysis of class with feminist analysis of gender, focusing on material and structural conditions of women’s oppression.Moi identifies herself as a socialist feminist, contrasting her approach with the depoliticized tendencies of some postmodern feminist theories (Moi 4).
GynesisCoined by Alice Jardine, it refers to the process of putting “woman” or “the feminine” into discourse as the repressed Other, often celebrated in postmodernist thought.Moi critiques Jardine’s Gynesis for valorizing the feminine as an abstract concept while failing to anchor it in anti-patriarchal, materialist contexts (Moi 12).
Equality vs. DifferenceThe dual feminist goals of achieving gender equality and affirming women’s unique experiences and identities, which are often seen as contradictory.Moi explores the dialectical tension between these approaches, arguing that both are essential but incompatible under patriarchy (Moi 5).
PhallogocentrismA term combining “phallocentrism” and “logocentrism,” used in poststructuralist theory to critique the privileging of male-centered logic and discourse.Moi discusses how feminists must deconstruct phallogocentric binaries without losing their grounding in political struggle (Moi 7).
CastrationIn Lacanian psychoanalysis, a metaphor for the lack or incompleteness inherent in subjectivity, often tied to patriarchal structures of power and authority.Moi critiques Jane Gallop’s universalization of castration in Reading Lacan, arguing it obscures gendered power imbalances (Moi 14).
Materialist FeminismA feminist framework focusing on the material and economic conditions of women’s lives and their structural basis in patriarchy and capitalism.Moi advocates for materialist feminism as a way to address systemic inequalities and avoid the abstraction of feminist theories like those in postmodernism (Moi 20).
OthernessA philosophical and psychoanalytic concept referring to the construction of an entity or group as fundamentally different or alien, often used to marginalize or oppress.Moi critiques the postmodern feminist use of Otherness, arguing it risks perpetuating patriarchal ideologies by abstracting oppression from its material and historical contexts (Moi 12).
Third SpaceA concept borrowed from Julia Kristeva, referring to a deconstructive space beyond binary oppositions such as equality/difference or male/female.Moi acknowledges the potential of Kristeva’s third space but critiques its utopian aspects, emphasizing the need for feminists to address material realities (Moi 7).
DeconstructionA poststructuralist method of analysis that seeks to expose and dismantle the binary oppositions and implicit hierarchies within texts and discourses.Moi draws on Derrida and Kristeva to discuss how feminists can deconstruct patriarchal binaries without undermining feminist political commitments (Moi 18).
PostfeminismA term used to describe feminist approaches influenced by postmodernism, often characterized by their critique of universal feminist goals and emphasis on multiplicity and subjectivity.Moi critiques postfeminism for its abstract focus on Otherness and reluctance to engage in political struggle, describing it as avoiding the agonistic core of feminism (Moi 12).
Feminist CritiqueCoined by Elaine Showalter, this refers to a mode of feminist analysis that emphasizes the political and ideological underpinnings of literature and culture.Moi critiques postmodern feminist theorists like Jardine for abandoning feminist critique in favor of abstract theorizing (Moi 10).
Contribution of “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Integration of Feminist and Postmodern Theories

  • Moi bridges feminist theory with postmodernist approaches, critically engaging with their intersections and contradictions. She emphasizes the challenge of reconciling feminism’s political goals with postmodernism’s skepticism of metanarratives, asking, “What then can it mean to declare oneself a feminist postmodernist?” (Moi 6).

2. Critique of Postmodern Feminism

  • Moi critiques the abstraction in postmodern feminism, particularly its reliance on concepts like Otherness and textuality, which risk detaching feminism from material struggles. She argues, “The promotion and valorization of Otherness will never liberate the oppressed” (Moi 12). This critique emphasizes the need for feminist theory to remain politically engaged.

3. Theorization of Equality vs. Difference

  • Moi explores the dialectical tension between feminist goals of equality and difference, highlighting how both are necessary yet contradictory under patriarchy. She identifies this as a productive site for feminist theorizing, stating, “Equality and difference are not in this sense antitheses” (Moi 5).

4. Materialist Feminism in Literary Theory

  • The essay reinforces the importance of materialist feminism as a framework for analyzing literature and culture, advocating for a politically grounded approach. Moi writes, “Only a materialist analysis can provide a credible explanation” for the systemic oppression reflected in cultural texts (Moi 12).

5. Critique of Stylistics in Feminist Writing

  • Moi addresses the role of style in feminist theory, critiquing Jane Gallop’s Reading Lacan for substituting stylistics for substantive feminist politics. She asserts, “To take up a style is to take up a position,” emphasizing the inseparability of form and political content (Moi 22).

6. Deconstruction in Feminist Criticism

  • Moi incorporates deconstructive methods into feminist literary theory, particularly through her discussion of Julia Kristeva’s “third space.” She critiques Kristeva’s utopian tendencies while affirming the utility of deconstruction in exposing patriarchal binaries (Moi 7).

7. Reconceptualization of Postfeminism

  • Moi critiques the abstract nature of postfeminism, arguing that it often avoids political commitments. She emphasizes that “Postfeminism can never be post-feminist” unless it emerges from a post-patriarchal context, aligning feminist theory with systemic critique (Moi 12).

8. Cross-Cultural Feminist Dialogues in Theory

  • The essay highlights the importance of transnational feminist dialogue, contrasting British/Scandinavian socialist feminism with American feminist criticism. Moi sees this dialogue as crucial for “the development of a feminist dialogue across narrow national preoccupations” (Moi 4).

9. Political Engagement in Literary Theory

  • Moi underscores the need for feminist literary theory to remain politically engaged, rejecting depoliticized and purely theoretical approaches. She insists, “Feminism is, of course, much more than a commitment to a certain style” (Moi 16).
Examples of Critiques Through “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi
Literary WorkKey Critique Based on Moi’s FrameworkExplanation/Analysis from Moi’s Perspective
Alice Jardine’s GynesisAbstracts “woman” as a concept, detaching it from materialist and political contexts.Moi critiques Jardine for celebrating femininity in abstract terms, noting that “the promotion and valorization of Otherness will never liberate the oppressed” (Moi 12). Jardine’s focus on textualized femininity lacks grounding in real-world struggles against patriarchy.
Jane Gallop’s Reading LacanSubstitutes stylistic innovation for substantive feminist critique, erasing gendered power dynamics through a universalized concept of castration.Moi argues that Gallop’s use of Lacanian psychoanalysis undermines feminist politics by framing castration as a universal condition, stating, “Women are always already cast as lacking” (Moi 14). This approach fails to address the material inequalities between men and women.
Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second SexDemonstrates the importance of politically grounded feminist writing and style that challenges patriarchal structures.Moi praises de Beauvoir’s authoritative philosophical style as a subversive intervention into male-dominated discourse. She notes, “Her deliberate assumption of traditional discursive authority represented a massive invasion of previously patriarchal discursive terrain” (Moi 22).
Jacques Derrida’s TheoriesOffers valuable tools for deconstructing patriarchal binaries but risks depoliticizing feminist critique if used without materialist grounding.Moi integrates Derrida’s deconstruction but critiques its potential for abstracting feminist struggles, arguing, “We must situate our deconstructive gestures in specific political contexts” (Moi 18). Without this, deconstruction risks reinforcing rather than dismantling oppressive structures.
Criticism Against “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

1. Overemphasis on Socialist Feminism

  • Critics argue that Moi’s focus on socialist feminism and materialist analysis may marginalize other feminist perspectives, such as those rooted in cultural or intersectional frameworks. This can lead to a limited view of the multiplicity of feminist approaches.

2. Ambiguity in Addressing Postmodernism

  • While Moi critiques postmodernism’s abstract tendencies, she simultaneously draws from its tools like deconstruction, creating a tension in her argument. Critics find this reliance contradictory and unclear in its practical implications for feminist theory.

3. Dismissal of Stylistic Experimentation

  • Moi’s critique of Jane Gallop’s stylistic approach in Reading Lacan as overly abstract and disconnected from political engagement may undervalue the role of experimental writing in challenging traditional power structures.

4. Limited Engagement with Intersectionality

  • The essay has been critiqued for not sufficiently incorporating intersectional analysis, which examines how race, class, sexuality, and other identities intersect with gender, leaving gaps in its critique of feminist and postmodern theories.

5. Narrow View of Postfeminism

  • Moi critiques postfeminism as depoliticized and abstract but may oversimplify its potential contributions. Some argue that postfeminism offers valuable critiques of essentialism and can coexist with political activism when appropriately contextualized.

6. Reliance on Binary Oppositions

  • Moi critiques binary oppositions such as equality/difference and feminism/postfeminism, but her own analysis occasionally reinforces these binaries, leading to a lack of resolution or synthesis in her arguments.

7. Underrepresentation of Non-Western Feminisms

  • The essay primarily focuses on Western feminist frameworks, with limited attention to the contributions or critiques of non-Western feminist theories, which could offer a more global and diverse perspective.

8. Potential Reductionism in Political Commitments

  • Moi’s insistence on politically grounded feminism has been critiqued for potentially alienating theoretical or abstract feminist explorations that may not explicitly engage with immediate political goals but still contribute to broader feminist discourse.
Representative Quotations from “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Feminism is strictly speaking an impossible position.” (p. 6)Moi argues that feminism aims to abolish itself by dismantling patriarchy, making its ultimate goal paradoxically unattainable.
“Equality and difference are not in this sense antitheses.” (p. 6)Emphasizing that feminism must navigate the tension between asserting women’s equality and valuing women’s differences.
“Postfeminism can never be post-feminist.” (p. 12)Critiques the notion of postfeminism as depoliticized and argues that it still operates within patriarchal frameworks.
“We must, then, at once live out the contradictions of all three feminisms and agonistically take sides.” (p. 7)Advocates for a dialectical approach, embracing contradictions while engaging in political action.
“The promotion and valorization of Otherness will never liberate the oppressed.” (p. 12)Critiques postmodernism’s abstraction of “Otherness,” arguing it lacks the specificity needed for feminist action.
“To name is to exercise power.” (p. 10)Highlights the political importance of defining terms, rejecting the postmodernist reluctance to define feminism.
“Feminist intellectuals cannot avoid polemics and value judgments.” (p. 10)Asserts that taking political positions is essential for feminist scholarship, contrasting with postmodern objectivity.
“Feminism is much more than a commitment to a certain style.” (p. 16)Rejects the reduction of feminism to stylistic practices, emphasizing its roots in substantive political engagement.
“There can never be one correct feminist style.” (p. 22)Celebrates diversity in feminist approaches, rejecting the idea of a singular feminist style or methodology.
“To take up a political position means accepting the pain of loss, sacrifice, and closure.” (p. 7)Reflects on the difficulties and sacrifices involved in adopting a committed political stance in feminism.
Suggested Readings: “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi
  1. Moi, Toril. “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style: Recent Feminist Criticism in the United States.” Cultural Critique, no. 9, 1988, pp. 3–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354232. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  2. Showden, Carisa R. “What’s Political about the New Feminisms?” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, 2009, pp. 166–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40388740. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  3. Jarratt, Susan C. “Beside Ourselves: Rhetoric and Representation in Postcolonial Feminist Writing.” JAC, vol. 18, no. 1, 1998, pp. 57–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866171. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  4. Irving, Katrina. “(Still) Hesitating on the Threshold: Feminist Theory and the Question of the Subject.” NWSA Journal, vol. 1, no. 4, 1989, pp. 630–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315959. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.

“Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the summer of 1976 in Comparative Literature, published by Duke University Press on behalf of the University of Oregon.

"Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler

“Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the summer of 1976 in Comparative Literature, published by Duke University Press on behalf of the University of Oregon. This article explores the evolving paradigms of literary criticism, especially in the context of the waning dominance of New Criticism. Culler critiques the interpretive fixation of New Criticism, which emphasizes the autonomy of the text and the primacy of close reading, arguing that it constrains the broader theoretical ambitions of literary studies. He advocates for a shift away from the relentless production of interpretations toward a deeper understanding of literature as a cultural institution interwoven with various forms of discourse. The essay is crucial in literary theory as it identifies limitations in conventional criticism and calls for a reconceptualization of literature’s role within historical, social, and psychological contexts, influencing later critical movements like structuralism, post-structuralism, and intertextuality. Its enduring importance lies in challenging critics to expand their theoretical approaches beyond the boundaries of textual interpretation.

Summary of “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler

1. Critique of New Criticism’s Legacy
Jonathan Culler highlights the hegemony of New Criticism in post-WWII literary studies, which emphasized the autonomy of texts and “close reading” as the cornerstone of literary education. While its focus on textual unity democratized literary analysis, it also fostered a narrow commitment to interpretation, constraining broader theoretical exploration (Culler 244–245).

2. Interpretation as a Limiting Framework
Culler critiques the pervasive assumption that the primary role of critics is to interpret texts. This interpretive focus, rooted in the New Criticism, prioritizes thematic unity and internal coherence, often at the expense of exploring literature’s broader social, historical, and psychological dimensions (Culler 246–247).

3. Call for Theoretical Reorientation
Rather than generating endless interpretations, Culler advocates for theoretical projects that explore literature’s institutional and cultural roles. He calls for a typology of discourse, a theory of fiction, and a systematic understanding of the interrelations between literary texts and other societal forms of meaning-making (Culler 247–248).

4. Limitations of Alternative Critical Movements
Culler examines three critical approaches that failed to transcend the interpretive paradigm:

  • Northrop Frye’s Archetypal Criticism: Although Frye aimed to establish a systematic poetics, his work became a tool for interpretation, reinforcing traditional criticism rather than advancing poetics (Culler 248–249).
  • Psychoanalytic Criticism: Psychoanalytic approaches often reduced themselves to interpretive methods, exemplified by works like Frederick Crews’ The Sins of the Fathers, which applied Freudian analysis to individual texts instead of addressing broader psychological insights about fiction (Culler 249).
  • Stanley Fish’s Affective Stylistics: Fish’s reader-response focus underscored the temporality of reading but failed to develop a comprehensive theory of interpretation, limiting its potential to reshape critical practice (Culler 250–251).

5. Influence of European Criticism
Culler turns to contemporary European criticism, particularly structuralism and intertextuality, to challenge the dominance of interpretive criticism. He emphasizes that reading is inherently relational and shaped by the interplay of multiple texts and cultural codes, as articulated by Roland Barthes (Culler 253–254).

6. Toward a New Critical Enterprise
Culler calls for criticism to move beyond interpretation and embrace the study of literature as a dynamic cultural and historical phenomenon. He advocates for dialectical and historical approaches, such as Fredric Jameson’s Marxist criticism, which contextualizes literary forms within broader social paradigms (Culler 254–255).

7. Deformalization and Literary History
Culler identifies a shift from formalist to deformalist criticism, particularly among Yale critics like Harold Bloom and Paul de Man, who frame interpretation as historical error. This perspective opens new theoretical pathways by examining why interpretive practices emerge and persist (Culler 255–256).

8. A Vision for Future Criticism
Culler concludes by envisioning a more theoretically sophisticated literary criticism that prioritizes understanding the conventions and systems enabling literature’s creation and reception. He urges critics to explore literature’s intertextual and cultural complexities, resisting the reductive focus on textual interpretation (Culler 256).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationContext in Culler’s Argument
New CriticismA dominant literary approach emphasizing textual autonomy, unity, and “close reading.”Culler critiques its focus on interpretation and its limitations for advancing broader literary theory (Culler 244–245).
Textual AutonomyThe principle that a literary work is an independent whole, separate from external contexts.Foundational to New Criticism, but limits engagement with historical, social, and psychological contexts (Culler 246).
InterpretationThe process of deriving meaning from a literary text, often through thematic unity and coherence.Critiqued as overly restrictive; Culler advocates exploring other critical methods (Culler 246–247).
Thematic UnityThe idea that all parts of a text contribute to a coherent, unified meaning.A central focus of New Criticism that reinforces interpretive approaches (Culler 247).
IntertextualityThe concept that a text derives meaning through its relationship to other texts.Emphasized as an alternative to interpretive criticism, influenced by Roland Barthes (Culler 253–254).
Reader-Response TheoryA theory that focuses on the reader’s role in creating meaning through the act of reading.Explored through Stanley Fish’s “affective stylistics,” critiqued for not advancing a comprehensive theory (Culler 251).
Structuralist PoeticsA systematic approach to studying literature based on structures and conventions of language and form.Advocated as a means to go beyond interpretation and explore literary systems (Culler 254–255).
Archetypal CriticismA method of interpretation focusing on recurring symbols and patterns in literature.Critiqued for reinforcing interpretive goals instead of advancing systematic poetics (Culler 248).
Historical CriticismThe study of literature’s relationship to its historical and social contexts.Encouraged as a means to understand literature’s institutional and cultural roles (Culler 254–255).
Dialectical CriticismA Marxist-inspired approach examining the interplay between literature and its social and historical forms.Highlighted in Fredric Jameson’s work as a model for moving beyond textual interpretation (Culler 254–255).
Contribution of “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critique of New Criticism

  • Contribution: Culler critiques the limitations of New Criticism, particularly its focus on textual autonomy, close reading, and thematic unity.
  • Theory/Approach: New Criticism.
  • Impact: He highlights how New Criticism’s commitment to interpretation as the primary critical task has constrained broader theoretical inquiries.
  • Reference: “The most important and insidious legacy of the New Criticism is the widespread and unquestioning acceptance of the notion that the critic’s job is to interpret literary works” (Culler 245).

2. Advancing Structuralist Poetics

  • Contribution: Culler advocates for structuralist approaches that focus on the conventions, systems, and operations of literature rather than on individual textual interpretations.
  • Theory/Approach: Structuralism.
  • Impact: He calls for a systematic poetics that investigates how literature operates as a discourse, moving beyond thematic interpretation.
  • Reference: “To engage in the study of literature is… to advance one’s understanding of the conventions and operations of an institution, a mode of discourse” (Culler 246).

3. Emphasis on Intertextuality

  • Contribution: Culler introduces the concept of intertextuality as essential to understanding literature. Texts are not autonomous but exist in relation to other texts, genres, and cultural codes.
  • Theory/Approach: Post-Structuralism and Intertextuality.
  • Impact: He positions intertextuality as a way to understand the dynamic and interconnected nature of texts, influenced by thinkers like Roland Barthes.
  • Reference: “To read a work as literature is inevitably and necessarily to read it in relation to other texts, past and present” (Culler 253).

4. Reassessing Reader-Response Theory

  • Contribution: By discussing Stanley Fish’s “affective stylistics,” Culler underscores the importance of the reader’s role in creating meaning but critiques the lack of a comprehensive theory of reading.
  • Theory/Approach: Reader-Response Theory.
  • Impact: He calls for a more systematic account of “literary competence” to better understand how readers process and interpret texts.
  • Reference: “Understanding literature is not a matter of understanding literary texts but of studying the activity of interpretation” (Culler 252).

5. Contribution to Historical Criticism

  • Contribution: Culler argues for a deeper historical understanding of literature as an institution, rather than focusing solely on individual works.
  • Theory/Approach: Historical Criticism and New Historicism.
  • Impact: He suggests that criticism should explore the historical and social functions of literature within broader cultural systems.
  • Reference: “We have only fragmentary or anecdotal histories of literature as an institution: we need a fuller exploration of its historical relation to other forms of discourse” (Culler 246).

6. Dialectical Criticism and Marxist Theory

  • Contribution: Drawing on Fredric Jameson’s work, Culler highlights the potential of dialectical criticism to explore the historical and social conditions that necessitate interpretation.
  • Theory/Approach: Marxist Literary Criticism.
  • Impact: He promotes an understanding of literature as part of the interplay of social and historical realities, emphasizing its forms rather than content alone.
  • Reference: “The interplay between a literary work and its historical ground lies in the way that the work’s form and formal devices assimilate, transform, or supplement a culture’s ways of producing meaning” (Culler 254).

7. Deconstruction of Interpretation

  • Contribution: Culler critiques the primacy of interpretation in literary studies, suggesting it limits the scope of criticism to thematic unification.
  • Theory/Approach: Deconstruction.
  • Impact: Inspired by post-structuralist thought, he views interpretation as a limiting construct and argues for a theoretical focus on the systems that enable meaning.
  • Reference: “Criticism has been dominated by the interpretive project to such an extent that alternative modes of inquiry are subsumed or neutralized” (Culler 253).

8. Contribution to Psychoanalytic Criticism

  • Contribution: He critiques psychoanalytic criticism for confining itself to interpretive goals rather than exploring literature’s broader psychological effects on readers and writers.
  • Theory/Approach: Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism.
  • Impact: Culler calls for psychoanalytic criticism to address larger questions about fiction’s status, role, and psychological operations.
  • Reference: “We ought to understand much more than we do about the effects of fictional discourse” (Culler 246).
Examples of Critiques Through “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkCritique Through Culler’s LensKey Concepts AppliedExplanation
Shakespeare’s King LearCritique of the endless pursuit of thematic interpretation that focuses on individual textual analysis.New Criticism, Limitations of Interpretive CriticismInstead of interpreting King Lear as a unified thematic whole, Culler would argue for studying its intertextual connections, conventions, and discursive impact.
Hawthorne’s The Scarlet LetterPsychoanalytic interpretations often reduce the text to Oedipal conflicts, limiting broader exploration of its cultural and social functions.Psychoanalytic Criticism, Effects of Fictional DiscourseCuller critiques the focus on resolving psychological “oddities” and calls for an investigation into the broader psychological and societal dynamics at play.
T. S. Eliot’s The Waste LandThe poem’s richness is often constrained by attempts to decode its symbolic unity or authorial intent.Intertextuality, Beyond the Authorial IntentCuller would advocate for viewing The Waste Land as an intertextual mosaic, exploring its connections to other texts and its function within literary conventions.
Conrad’s Heart of DarknessCritics often focus on the moral ambiguity and themes of colonialism, neglecting the work’s form and its historical role as discourse.Historical Criticism, Dialectical CriticismCuller suggests moving beyond thematic interpretation to analyze how the text reflects and transforms the paradigms of colonial and historical discourse.
Criticism Against “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
  • Overemphasis on Institutional Critique
    Critics argue that Culler’s focus on literature as a “mode of discourse” sidelines the importance of engaging directly with the aesthetic and affective aspects of individual texts, potentially alienating readers from the literary experience.
  • Neglect of Reader-Text Dynamics
    While Culler critiques interpretive criticism, some scholars contend that interpretation is an integral part of the reading process. Ignoring the reader’s active role in generating meaning risks oversimplifying the complex relationship between text and audience.
  • Practical Challenges to Abandoning Interpretation
    Culler’s call to move beyond interpretation is seen by some as idealistic and impractical, as interpretation remains a central method in teaching, appreciating, and analyzing literature.
  • Ambiguity in Alternative Approaches
    Critics highlight that Culler’s proposed alternatives, such as intertextuality and exploring institutional conventions, lack clear methodologies, leaving questions about how to apply his theories in practical literary analysis.
  • Undermining of Traditional Literary Criticism
    By rejecting interpretation as the core of criticism, Culler risks dismissing a foundational practice in literary studies, leading to concerns about the marginalization of established critical traditions.
  • Eurocentrism in Theoretical Foundations
    Some have pointed out that Culler’s reliance on European critical theories, such as structuralism and post-structuralism, may overshadow diverse critical traditions and perspectives from other cultural contexts.
  • Potential for Reductive Approaches
    By advocating for systemic and institutional critique, there is a risk of reducing complex literary works to mere examples of broader cultural or institutional processes, thereby neglecting their individuality and nuance.
Representative Quotations from “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“The most important and insidious legacy of the New Criticism is the widespread and unquestioning acceptance of the notion that the critic’s job is to interpret literary works.”Culler critiques the dominance of interpretation in literary criticism, arguing that it limits the field by equating literary understanding solely with interpretation.
“To engage in the study of literature is not to produce yet another interpretation of King Lear but to advance one’s understanding of the conventions and operations of an institution, a mode of discourse.”The emphasis shifts from interpreting individual works to analyzing the broader systems and conventions that shape literature as a social and cultural institution.
“The poem is not simply a series of sentences; it is spoken by a persona, who expresses an attitude to be defined.”This highlights the New Criticism’s focus on the internal coherence of a text and the persona’s role in shaping its meaning, which Culler argues narrows the scope of criticism.
“We need a more sophisticated and apposite account of the role of literature in the psychological economies of both writers and readers.”Culler calls for a more comprehensive understanding of literature’s societal and psychological functions, rather than focusing on isolated textual interpretations.
“Reading is never a natural and innocent activity.”This underscores the idea that reading is shaped by cultural and intertextual contexts, challenging the New Criticism’s notion of approaching texts without preconceived notions.
“The New Criticism’s dream of a fresh and unprejudiced approach to each autonomous artifact is not only impossible but fundamentally misconceived.”Culler critiques the New Criticism for its idealization of textual autonomy and argues for an intertextual and contextual approach to reading literature.
“The meaning of a work is not something it contains, in spatial fashion, but the experience which results from the linear and temporal processing of its components.”This redefines meaning as an experiential and dynamic process, aligning with theories like Stanley Fish’s reader-response criticism.
“Criticism has made almost no progress toward a comprehensive theory of fictions.”Culler critiques the lack of development in literary criticism towards understanding fiction’s role, highlighting the reliance on outdated notions like dramatic illusion and identification.
“To analyze a poem was to show how all its parts contributed to a complex statement about human problems.”Culler critiques this reductive approach of the New Criticism, where the primary goal is to unify the text’s elements into a singular thematic statement.
“The literary work participates in a variety of systems, plays among a series of languages.”This emphasizes the intertextuality of literature, suggesting that texts are inherently part of broader linguistic, cultural, and discursive systems, and cannot be understood in isolation.
Suggested Readings: “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  2. Culler, Jonathan. “Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism.” Comparative Literature, vol. 28, no. 3, 1976, pp. 244–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1769220. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  3. Mailloux, Steven. “Reading in Critical Theory.” MLN, vol. 96, no. 5, 1981, pp. 1149–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2906242. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
  4. Peck, Jeffrey M. “Advanced Literary Study as Cultural Study: A Redefinition of the Discipline.” Profession, 1985, pp. 49–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595374. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.

“On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in the Spring of 1978 (Vol. 9, No. 3) as part of a thematic issue on rhetorical analyses.

"On Trope and Persuasion" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

“On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in the Spring of 1978 (Vol. 9, No. 3) as part of a thematic issue on rhetorical analyses. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, this work examines the intricate relationship between rhetorical tropes and acts of persuasion, situating rhetoric as a field both of structural conventions and dynamic events. Culler argues that rhetoric is marked by paradoxes, such as its simultaneous role as a toolkit of figures and a process producing meaningful events. He explores how rhetoric operates in literary and textual contexts, influencing both the creation and interpretation of meaning. This essay is significant in literary theory for challenging static definitions of rhetoric and emphasizing its fluid interplay with semiotics, tropes, and the interpretative acts of readers and critics. By interrogating the undecidability inherent in rhetorical and literary practices, Culler highlights the dynamic, often contradictory nature of meaning-making, leaving a lasting impact on discussions of textuality and rhetorical criticism.

Summary of “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
  1. The Dual Nature of Rhetoric
    Culler argues that rhetoric occupies a paradoxical position, being simultaneously a set of structured conventions and a dynamic force capable of producing unpredictable events. This dual nature challenges traditional definitions and positions rhetoric as both a framework and a phenomenon of textuality (Culler, 1978, p. 608).
  2. Tropes as the Essence of Persuasion
    The essay explores the relationship between tropes (figurative language) and persuasion. While tropes structure discourse, their ability to generate meaning is discontinuous and incalculable. This interplay illustrates the inherent instability in rhetorical analysis, where structure often fails to fully explain events (p. 609).
  3. Rhetorical Analysis and Ambiguity
    Culler highlights contributions from other scholars like Stanley Meltzoff, who views rhetoric as the synthesis of linguistic and semiotic elements to produce events. However, Meltzoff acknowledges that the complexities of rhetorical effects, such as ambiguities, resist definitive analysis (p. 609-610).
  4. Case Studies of Shakespearean Rhetoric
    The analysis includes Thomas MacCary’s exploration of comedic patterns in The Comedy of Errors and Berel Lang’s examination of the tragic structure in King Lear. Lang successfully integrates structure and audience response, showing how rhetorical devices shape tragic effects, particularly through audience identification with Lear (p. 610-611).
  5. The Incertitude of Linguistic Constructs
    Ann Banfield’s discussion of style indirect libre (free indirect style) is critiqued for its focus on linguistic structures at the expense of rhetorical effects. Culler asserts that the interpretive function of such styles lies in their ambiguity, which resists fixed linguistic classification (p. 612).
  6. Rhetorical Figures in Classical Literature
    In discussing Oedipus Rex, Culler highlights how rhetorical figures, like metonymic reversals, blur the boundaries between meaning and events. The guilt of Oedipus arises not from the act itself but from the narrative’s interpretive framework, illustrating how rhetoric constructs reality (p. 614-615).
  7. Rhetoric as Generative and Ungrounded
    The essay extends to modern literature, as seen in Peter Brooks’ analysis of Frankenstein. The rhetoric of the monster disrupts traditional language and meaning, illustrating how ungrounded discourse can both persuade and destabilize humanistic values (p. 616).
  8. Political and Literary Dimensions of Rhetoric
    Victor Brombert’s work on Victor Hugo is discussed to show how rhetoric operates in political and literary criticism. Hugo’s assertions about textuality and indeterminacy reflect rhetoric’s power to simultaneously affirm and challenge interpretive norms (p. 617).
  9. Conclusion: The Inherent Aporias of Rhetoric
    Culler concludes that rhetoric is defined by its aporias—moments of irresolvable ambiguity. These aporias underscore the duality of rhetoric as both structural and event-driven, making it central to literary analysis and interpretation (p. 618).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/DescriptionSignificance
RhetoricThe art of using language to persuade or influence others, encompassing both structures (rules) and events.Highlights the paradoxical duality in rhetoric: structured conventions vs. dynamic, unpredictable outcomes.
TropeA figurative or rhetorical device used to shape meaning within a discourse.Essential to persuasion but inherently unstable; the basis of rhetorical and textual analysis.
PersuasionThe process by which rhetoric influences thought or behavior, often through emotional or logical appeal.Demonstrates rhetoric’s power to create meaning and incite action, despite its unpredictability.
Structure and EventThe interplay between established rhetorical forms and the unpredictable outcomes they produce.Emphasizes the incalculable nature of rhetorical effects; structures alone cannot fully explain events.
ParadoxThe contradictory characteristics inherent in rhetoric, such as being essential yet often avoided.Reflects the complexity and fluidity of rhetoric as a field of study.
Style Indirect LibreA narrative style blending the perspectives of the narrator and character, creating ambiguous attribution.Exemplifies the indeterminate and interpretive nature of rhetorical and literary discourse.
Metonymic ReversalA rhetorical shift where cause and effect are inverted, as seen in the narrative construction of events.Illustrates the constructed nature of reality in rhetoric, as in Oedipus Rex.
AmbiguityThe openness of rhetorical figures to multiple interpretations, preventing definitive meaning.Central to rhetoric’s power and its analytical challenges; shapes interpretive acts.
IntertextualityThe interconnectedness of texts through shared references and rhetorical structures.Highlights how meaning is created and contested within a broader textual framework, as in Hugo’s works.
RhetoricityThe quality of language that foregrounds its rhetorical nature, as opposed to direct representation.Explored in Frankenstein as a disruption of traditional humanistic discourse.
AporiaAn irresolvable contradiction or impasse within rhetoric or textual analysis.Exemplifies the limits of rhetorical understanding and its inherent complexities.
Figures of IdentificationTropes that create a shared perspective between character and audience, as seen in King Lear.Key to the emotional and rhetorical power of texts, particularly in dramatic contexts.
TextualityThe concept of the world as a text, subject to interpretation and imbued with rhetorical structures.Challenges assumptions about fixed reality; central to Hugo’s view of the world as authored by God.
Contribution of “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Poststructuralist Theory

  • Key Contribution: The essay highlights the inherent instability and undecidability in language, tropes, and meaning. It emphasizes that rhetoric operates within an aporetic space where meaning and events are incalculably intertwined (Culler, 1978, p. 608-609).
  • Significance: Aligns with poststructuralist views by rejecting the fixed relationship between language and meaning, showcasing the fluidity of textual interpretation.

2. Reader-Response Theory

  • Key Contribution: Culler argues that the interpretive act of the reader shapes the function of rhetorical devices like style indirect libre. Ambiguities in narrative style compel the reader to attribute meaning based on subjective hypotheses (p. 612).
  • Significance: Reinforces the role of the reader as an active participant in the creation of textual meaning, central to reader-response approaches.

3. Structuralist Semiotics

  • Key Contribution: The essay discusses rhetoric as a system of signs that produce events, underlining the structural interplay of figures and conventions (p. 610).
  • Significance: Demonstrates how tropes and rhetorical structures function within a system, advancing semiotic interpretations of language and literature.

4. Narrative Theory

  • Key Contribution: Through examples like King Lear and Oedipus Rex, Culler illustrates how rhetorical strategies shape narrative events and reader responses, often blurring the boundaries between structure and meaning (p. 610-615).
  • Significance: Expands the understanding of how narrative forms utilize rhetoric to engage and persuade audiences.

5. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

  • Key Contribution: The exploration of pre-oedipal patterns in The Comedy of Errors and the guilt-construction in Oedipus Rex bridges rhetoric and psychological drives (p. 609, p. 615).
  • Significance: Enriches psychoanalytic approaches by examining how rhetorical devices engage unconscious desires and conflicts.

6. Rhetorical Theory

  • Key Contribution: Culler revises classical notions of rhetoric by focusing on its paradoxes—its capacity to structure discourse and simultaneously disrupt conventional meaning (p. 608).
  • Significance: Positions rhetoric as central to both literary creation and interpretation, emphasizing its dual role as structure and event.

7. Feminist and Cultural Theories

  • Key Contribution: The discussion of texts like Frankenstein examines how marginalized voices, such as the monster’s, utilize rhetoric to challenge dominant ideologies (p. 616).
  • Significance: Supports feminist and cultural critiques by illustrating how rhetoric can disrupt traditional hierarchies and norms.

8. Intertextuality in Literary Theory

  • Key Contribution: By addressing Victor Hugo’s portrayal of the world as a text, Culler underscores the interdependence of texts and the impossibility of isolated meaning (p. 617).
  • Significance: Advances the concept of intertextuality, a key idea in postmodern and deconstructionist theories.

9. Deconstruction

  • Key Contribution: The essay engages with the undecidability of meaning, as seen in tropes like metonymic reversal, where cause and effect are destabilized (p. 615).
  • Significance: Contributes to deconstructionist critiques by showcasing how texts inherently deconstruct themselves through their reliance on unstable rhetoric.
Examples of Critiques Through “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkCritique Through Culler’s FrameworkKey Concepts from Culler’s EssayReference
The Comedy of ErrorsExamines its comedic pattern as pre-oedipal and narcissistic, relying on the audience’s identification with the characters’ struggles.– Rhetorical appeal
– Structure and event
– Identification in rhetoric
Culler, 1978, p. 609
King LearAnalyzes the tragedy’s emotional power through tropes of identification, merging the perspectives of Lear and the audience.– Figures of identification
– Structure vs. event
– Ambiguity
Culler, 1978, p. 610-611
Oedipus RexHighlights metonymic reversals, where guilt is inferred from narrative repetition, demonstrating how rhetoric constructs meaning.– Metonymic reversal
– Aporia in rhetoric
– Textual construction of reality
Culler, 1978, p. 614-615
FrankensteinFocuses on the monster’s ungrounded rhetoric, which disrupts traditional humanistic discourse and persuades readers to see the monster as human.– Rhetoricity
– Language as ungrounded
– Subversion of humanistic values
Culler, 1978, p. 616
Criticism Against “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

1. Overemphasis on Ambiguity

  • Culler’s focus on aporia and undecidability may overshadow the practical applications of rhetorical analysis. Critics argue that this emphasis renders rhetoric overly abstract and less useful for concrete literary interpretation.

2. Neglect of Historical Context

  • The essay largely overlooks the historical and cultural contexts in which rhetorical practices evolved, potentially limiting its scope and applicability to diverse literary traditions.

3. Lack of Empirical Validation

  • Culler’s arguments rely heavily on theoretical frameworks without empirical evidence or extensive textual examples to substantiate claims about rhetoric’s effects on meaning and events.

4. Overgeneralization of Rhetoric’s Dual Nature

  • Critics contend that the dual nature of rhetoric as both structure and event is treated as universal, neglecting cases where rhetoric functions more predictably and systematically.

5. Underrepresentation of Reader Diversity

  • The essay assumes a relatively uniform reader response, ignoring how different cultural, historical, and personal backgrounds might influence interpretations of rhetorical devices.

6. Ambiguity in Terminology

  • Terms like “trope,” “event,” and “aporia” are used extensively but are not always clearly defined or differentiated, which could lead to confusion among readers.

7. Limited Exploration of Non-Western Rhetoric

  • Culler’s analysis is centered on Western literary traditions, leaving non-Western rhetorical practices and theories largely unexamined.

8. Potential Circular Reasoning

  • The argument that rhetoric simultaneously creates and undermines meaning may fall into circular reasoning, as it relies on the premise that all meaning is inherently unstable.

9. Minimal Engagement with Counterarguments

  • The essay does not sufficiently address alternative views or critiques of rhetorical theory, which could enrich the discussion and bolster the validity of its claims.

10. Marginalization of Authorial Intent

  • Culler’s emphasis on the reader and textual effects minimizes the role of authorial intent, which some critics see as a crucial aspect of rhetorical and literary analysis.
Representative Quotations from “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Rhetoric is the art of using language effectively, yet it is also that which any composition must avoid if it is to be truly effective.”Highlights the paradoxical nature of rhetoric: simultaneously essential for persuasion and potentially disruptive.
“The relationship between structure and event is incalculable, which is why rhetoric is fated…to be simultaneously a discourse of structure and event.”Emphasizes the unpredictable interplay between rhetorical forms (structure) and their real-world impact (event).
“Rhetorical analysis attempts to account for these events, and it does so by identifying structures, patterns, figures.”Defines the aim of rhetorical analysis: understanding how rhetorical elements influence discourse and meaning.
“Ambiguities balance… until we see where the ambiguities balance.”Reflects rhetoric’s capacity to accommodate and sustain multiple interpretations without definitive resolution.
“One cannot claim with any confidence that the responses to the play correspond to the effects predicted for its structure.”Critiques the unpredictability of rhetorical effects, demonstrating the complexity of connecting intent with outcome.
“Style indirect libre is a function which sentences can be given, and there are features which may lead the reader to give sentences this function.”Explains how certain narrative techniques encourage readers to attribute ambiguous rhetorical significance.
“Man discovers himself enigmatic, without stability or a domain proper to him, oscillating between the equal of god and the equal of nothing.”Explores the existential implications of rhetoric as a force that destabilizes identity and meaning.
“Instead of inferring a meaning from a deed, we infer a deed from a meaning.”Illustrates how rhetoric reverses traditional causality, constructing events through interpretive frameworks.
“The monster’s rhetoric… persuades those who, like the blind de Lacey, cannot see that it is being used not in its proper human reference but in reference to the improper, the monstrous.”Demonstrates how rhetoric subverts expectations, redefining the boundaries between the human and the monstrous.
“Faith may stand firm against textuality. That is what Brombert needs in his political battle… or else effacing tropes and ending the need for persuasion.”Suggests that belief or faith might counter rhetoric’s destabilizing tendencies, highlighting its political implications.
Suggested Readings: “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  2. Culler, Jonathan. “On Trope and Persuasion.” New Literary History, vol. 9, no. 3, 1978, pp. 607–18. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468458. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  3. Vickers, Brian. “The Atrophy of Modern Rhetoric, Vico to De Man.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 6, no. 1, 1988, pp. 21–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.1.21. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  4. Kelly, Dorothy. “The Ghost of Meaning: Language in the Fantastic.” SubStance, vol. 11, no. 2, 1982, pp. 46–55. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3684024. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  5. Mattson, Craig E. “A Better Feeling for Making the World Better? TOMS’s Tropes and the Buy-One-Give-One Mode.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 5, 2018, pp. 440–58. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48544137. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

“New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History, Vol. 25, No. 4, in its 25th Anniversary Issue (Autumn, 1994).

"New Literary History and European Theory" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

“New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History, Vol. 25, No. 4, in its 25th Anniversary Issue (Autumn, 1994). Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, this essay critically examines the evolving role of journals in shaping literary studies, particularly highlighting the contributions of New Literary History to the integration of European theoretical frameworks into the American academic landscape. Culler discusses how the journal, initially oriented toward rethinking literary history, became a platform for introducing and debating diverse theoretical perspectives such as structuralism, deconstruction, and psychoanalytic criticism. Emphasizing its pioneering role in fostering dialogues between American and European thought, the essay underscores the journal’s importance in reshaping the critical methodologies and intellectual horizons of literary studies, marking it as a vital force in the evolution of contemporary literary theory. Its impact lies in facilitating the cross-pollination of ideas that encouraged more explicit theoretical reflection and methodological innovation within the discipline.

Summary of “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

1. Journals as Catalysts for Literary Development

  • Culler critiques Rene Wellek’s notion that literary criticism evolves through individual efforts rather than collective journalistic trends. Journals like New Literary History have significantly influenced shifts in literary criticism by integrating new forms of interpretive practices and theoretical frameworks. Journals have transitioned from promoting public criticism to academic interpretive practices (Culler, 870).

2. The Role of Journals in Theoretical Movements

  • Highlighting the mid-20th-century evolution, Culler emphasizes how journals supported the rise of movements like New Criticism. The Southern Review and The Kenyon Review, financed by universities, facilitated a professionalized approach to literary discourse while maintaining anti-academic stances (Culler, 870). This platform led to the success of New Criticism as an academic force (Forster, 22).

3. Emergence of New Literary History

  • Founded in 1969 during the University of Virginia’s sesquicentennial celebrations, New Literary History began with an intent to renovate literary history but soon shifted its focus to theoretical innovations. It became instrumental in bridging European theoretical paradigms with American literary studies, thus fostering critical re-evaluations of literature (Culler, 872-873).

4. Shift from Poetics to Theory

  • Comparing New Literary History issues from 1973 and 1993, Culler observes a shift in focus. Earlier volumes emphasized poetics and structuralist theory, including contributions from theorists like Todorov and Lévi-Strauss. By 1993, the journal expanded into diverse theoretical discussions encompassing psychoanalysis, feminism, and cultural studies (Culler, 873-874).

5. Cross-Disciplinary Influences

  • The journal welcomed interdisciplinary approaches, encouraging integration of sociological, historical, and linguistic methodologies. Early contributions like Paul Ricoeur’s “The Model of the Text” proposed textual interpretation as a paradigm for understanding social sciences (Culler, 876).

6. Evolution of European Theory

  • European theoretical dominance transformed across decades, with structuralism being succeeded by poststructuralist inquiries. Contributions like Mark Seem’s work on antiliterature, inspired by Deleuze and Foucault, exemplified this intellectual trajectory (Culler, 877).

7. Feminist and Global Perspectives

  • By the 1990s, the journal reflected broader inclusivity, with increased representation of feminist scholars and contributors from non-Western regions. This marked a significant departure from its earlier Eurocentric and male-dominated character (Culler, 874).

8. Challenges and Critiques of Theory

  • Articles like Deborah Knight’s “Reconsidering Film Theory and Method” critiqued theoretical overextensions, urging a return to foundational questions about intelligibility and critical practice (Culler, 877).

9. Ralph Cohen’s Editorial Vision

  • Culler attributes the journal’s adaptability to its editor, Ralph Cohen, whose intellectual evolution mirrored the journal’s trajectory. Cohen’s projects, from literary history to theoretical synthesis, exemplified the dynamic interplay of editor-contributor relationships (Culler, 878-879).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/DescriptionReference/Context in Article
New CriticismA mid-20th-century literary movement emphasizing close reading and textual analysis over historical or biographical context.Culler discusses how journals like The Southern Review and The Kenyon Review propelled this movement (Culler, 870).
StructuralismA theoretical approach focusing on underlying structures (e.g., language, myth) that shape texts and cultural practices.Represented in early New Literary History volumes through contributions by Lévi-Strauss and Todorov (Culler, 873-874).
PoststructuralismA reaction against structuralism, emphasizing fluidity, multiplicity of meanings, and the instability of language and structures.Explored through works like Mark Seem’s article on antiliterature influenced by Deleuze and Foucault (Culler, 877).
Literary TheoryThe study of methods, principles, and tools for interpreting texts, incorporating diverse perspectives like psychoanalysis, Marxism, and feminism.Became the focal point of New Literary History, moving away from its initial focus on literary history (Culler, 872-873).
HermeneuticsThe theory and methodology of interpretation, particularly of texts.Exemplified in Paul Ricoeur’s essay, which positions textual interpretation as central to understanding social sciences (876).
FeminismA theoretical lens that examines gender inequalities and promotes understanding of women’s roles and representation in literature and society.Increased prominence in the journal’s later issues, as seen in contributions from feminist scholars (Culler, 874).
PsychoanalysisA theoretical framework that explores the unconscious mind’s influence on behavior, art, and literature, often referencing Freud and Lacan.Referenced frequently in the 1993 volumes, marking its integration into literary discourse (Culler, 877).
NarratologyThe study of narrative structures and how they affect readers’ understanding and interpretation.Discussed in Mieke Bal’s article exploring narrative as epistemology (Culler, 878).
AntiliteratureA counter-discourse rejecting traditional forms of continuity, representation, and totality in literature.Explored by Mark Seem through the lens of French theory, particularly Deleuze and Foucault (Culler, 877).
InterdisciplinarityThe integration of methods and concepts from multiple disciplines (e.g., sociology, history) into literary studies.Central to the journal’s mission, encouraging articles from diverse fields (Culler, 873).
Contribution of “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
  • Advancement of Structuralism
    • New Literary History played a pivotal role in integrating structuralist theories into American literary discourse. The journal featured influential contributions from theorists like Lévi-Strauss and Todorov, who explored structural definitions of literature and myths (Culler, 873-874).
    • Example: Todorov’s essay on the “Notion of Literature” highlighted structuralism’s capacity to question the homogeneity of literary discourse, fostering genre-based analysis (Culler, 876).
  • Promotion of Poststructuralism
    • By the 1990s, New Literary History helped mainstream poststructuralist theories, focusing on fluidity, decentralization of meaning, and anti-totality concepts.
    • Example: Mark Seem’s article “Liberation of Difference” theorized counterdiscourses and explored poststructuralist ideas rooted in Deleuze and Foucault’s works (Culler, 877).
  • Incorporation of Psychoanalytic Criticism
    • The journal integrated Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis as critical frameworks, especially in the 1990s volumes.
    • Example: References to Lacan, Kristeva, and Irigaray became frequent in exploring identity, subjectivity, and unconscious dynamics in literary texts (Culler, 877).
  • Expansion of Feminist Literary Theory
    • Contributions by feminist scholars in the 1993 volumes signified a broader acceptance of feminist theoretical approaches.
    • Example: The increased presence of women contributors and articles on gender and feminist critique enriched the theoretical landscape of literary studies (Culler, 874).
  • Narratology as an Interdisciplinary Tool
    • The journal fostered innovative uses of narratology beyond literature, framing it as a tool for understanding knowledge production in social sciences.
    • Example: Mieke Bal’s essay “Narrative as Epistemology” demonstrated how narratological methods could address interdisciplinary epistemological issues (Culler, 878).
  • Critique of Traditional Literary History
    • While initially aiming to revitalize literary history, New Literary History pivoted towards critical theory and interdisciplinarity. This shift redefined how literary history is approached, often rejecting traditional linear narratives (Culler, 872).
  • Bridging American and European Theory
    • The journal became a mediator between European theoretical paradigms (e.g., structuralism, poststructuralism) and American literary criticism, fostering intellectual cross-pollination.
    • Example: Articles juxtaposed European theorists like Ricoeur and Lévi-Strauss with American scholars, enabling theoretical synthesis (Culler, 873).
  • Development of Interdisciplinarity
    • New Literary History encouraged the convergence of literary studies with sociology, linguistics, and history, promoting methodological innovation.
    • Example: Theoretical frameworks from social sciences were adapted to explore literature’s evolving role (Culler, 873-874).
Examples of Critiques Through “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkCritique/AnalysisTheoretical FrameworkReference/Context in Article
Wuthering Heights by Emily BrontëFrank Kermode situates the novel within the context of European theory, particularly Wolfgang Iser’s ideas on indeterminacies in texts and Roland Barthes’s narrative plurality. Kermode embraces pluralism but resists Barthes’s extreme views on textual naivety and plurality by accident.Reader-response theory and structuralist critique.Culler highlights Kermode’s nuanced reading of Brontë’s work (Culler, 875).
Rousseau’s WorksPeter Brooks draws on Derrida’s treatment of Rousseau to explore themes of speech, writing, and gesture. The analysis reconfigures muteness as a type of signifying practice rather than a mere theme.Poststructuralism, particularly Derrida’s deconstruction.Brooks’s essay “The Text of Muteness” is discussed as an example (Culler, 874).
Proust’s and Beckett’s WorksMark Seem discusses these works as examples of antiliterature, rejecting traditional continuity and representation. Their discourse exemplifies nomadic anarchy and production of difference, aligning with Deleuzian ideas.Poststructuralism, particularly Deleuze and Foucault’s theories of difference and counterdiscourses.Seem’s essay “Liberation of Difference: Toward a Theory of Antiliterature” (Culler, 877).
Myths and FolkloreLévi-Strauss analyzes myths, focusing on how structural transformations cause myths to die or attenuate over time. This structuralist analysis highlights underlying patterns in cultural narratives.Structuralism, specifically Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology.Culler refers to Lévi-Strauss’s article “How Myths Die” (Culler, 876).
Criticism Against “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler
  • Overemphasis on European Theories
    • Critics argue that the article disproportionately highlights European theoretical frameworks like structuralism and poststructuralism, sidelining other global or indigenous theoretical contributions.
  • Neglect of Practical Literary History
    • While the journal’s initial goal was to revitalize literary history, critics contend that it drifted towards abstract theoretical discourse, neglecting the practical reconstruction of literary histories (Culler, 872).
  • Lack of Coherence in Theoretical Focus
    • The article highlights the journal’s shift from focused discussions on poetics to a broader and more fragmented range of topics, leading to a perceived lack of coherence in later issues (Culler, 873).
  • Underrepresentation of Non-Western Perspectives
    • Despite increased diversity in contributors by 1993, the article itself does not sufficiently critique the Eurocentric dominance in the journal’s earlier years or its limited engagement with non-Western literary traditions (Culler, 874).
  • Minimal Critical Engagement with Theories
    • The article tends to describe the journal’s contributions to literary theory without critically assessing the limitations or potential drawbacks of the theoretical paradigms discussed.
  • Overreliance on Editorial Vision
    • The article credits much of the journal’s trajectory to Ralph Cohen’s editorial leadership, which critics might see as limiting the scope of collective scholarly influence (Culler, 878).
  • Ambiguity in Defining “Theory”
    • Culler uses the term “theory” broadly, leading to potential ambiguities about what constitutes theory versus literary history or criticism in the context of the journal.
  • Focus on Institutional Backing
    • Critics may find the emphasis on institutional and financial aspects (e.g., university funding for journals) distracting from the core intellectual contributions of the journal (Culler, 872).
Representative Quotations from “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanationReference
“Journals may be decisive for the development of a critical movement, even though there is another level at which books remain decisive for criticism in general.”Highlights the dual role of journals and books, with journals fostering innovation and books offering enduring frameworks for literary criticism.Culler, 870
“The New Criticism originated as an argument about the nature of poetry in T. S. Eliot’s The Sacred Wood (1920), but also as a challenge to the historical scholarship in several new quarterlies.”Contextualizes the emergence of New Criticism, emphasizing how journals served as platforms for theoretical debates and innovation in literary studies.Culler, 870
“The hoped-for renovation of literary history did not occur in its pages, and the journal found itself increasingly focused on literary theory in general.”Critiques the shift in New Literary History away from its initial goal of revitalizing literary history toward a broader focus on theoretical discussions.Culler, 872
“European theory in this volume means several things: primarily, perhaps, the sort of poetics encouraged by French structuralism.”Emphasizes the significant influence of French structuralist poetics as a central framework within New Literary History’s early theoretical focus.Culler, 874
“Structuralism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics were juxtaposed with essays by American critics who were drawing on European theory.”Highlights the journal’s bridging role, juxtaposing European theoretical paradigms with American literary scholarship to foster interdisciplinary discourse.Culler, 874
“New Literary History quickly became a major forum for the discussion and assimilation of foreign work, though this had not seemed its original goal.”Notes the evolution of the journal into a platform for global theoretical exchange, particularly emphasizing its role in assimilating European influences.Culler, 872
“In the 1990s, European theory meant something other than poetics and affiliated projects; French psychoanalytic theory was now taken for granted as a resource.”Reflects the journal’s expanding theoretical scope, particularly its integration of psychoanalytic frameworks into literary and cultural studies.Culler, 877
“The turn to history came not in the pages of New Literary History but in Representations … analyzing nonliterary discourses of the past alongside literature.”Contrasts the theoretical focus of New Literary History with the historical and interdisciplinary approach of other journals like Representations.Culler, 875
“What has happened to literary and cultural theory is that people teaching in literature departments may be working on film and popular culture … without referring to literary works at all.”Critiques the broadening scope of literary studies, where theoretical frameworks often transcend traditional literary texts, focusing on popular culture and other disciplines.Culler, 873
“Perhaps the time has come for another revision of the invitation to contributors.”Suggests a need for New Literary History to redefine its editorial goals to better align with its evolving theoretical and interdisciplinary focus.Culler, 873
Suggested Readings: “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  2. Culler, Jonathan. “New Literary History and European Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 25, no. 4, 1994, pp. 869–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469379. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  3. Williams, Jeffrey J. “The Rise of the Theory Journal.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 683–702. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666435. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

“Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History (Vol. 7, No. 2) in the Winter of 1976, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

"Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler

“Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History (Vol. 7, No. 2) in the Winter of 1976, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This pivotal essay explores the methodological challenges in constructing literary history, particularly emphasizing the limitations of chronological and causally deterministic models. Culler critiques traditional approaches that either reduce literature to social or economic reflections or analyze it as isolated works devoid of broader cultural contexts. Instead, he advocates for a semiological framework, positioning literature as a system of signs within broader cultural and symbolic systems. This perspective allows for the examination of literature’s formal operations in producing meaning and its interaction with societal signification processes. By linking the study of literary conventions to their socio-cultural contexts, Culler redefines literary history as a history of meaning-making rather than a mere chronology of works or authors. This essay has had a lasting impact on literary theory, particularly influencing structuralist and poststructuralist discussions on the interplay of literature, culture, and semiotics.

Summary of “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Reimagining Literary History
    Jonathan Culler critiques traditional approaches to literary history, which fail to adequately integrate literature into cultural history. He proposes a semiological perspective, treating literature and culture as interconnected systems of signs. This approach allows for the study of how literature produces meaning within cultural contexts (Culler 259-261).
  2. Challenges in Writing Literary History
    Culler identifies issues with sequential and causally deterministic models of literary history. He asserts that literature cannot be solely understood through chronological development, as it lacks direct causal relationships with preceding works. Instead, he argues for examining the homology of form between literature and society, focusing on shared mechanisms of meaning production (Culler 261-263).
  3. Semiological Systems and Cultural Production
    Culler emphasizes that literature operates as a symbolic system within broader cultural semiotics. By understanding literature as a convention-driven system of meaning, scholars can uncover its interplay with societal signification processes. This view aligns with structuralist and poststructuralist methodologies (Culler 263-265).
  4. The Symbolic and Allegorical in Literary Production
    Culler distinguishes between symbolic and allegorical modes of signification. Symbols suggest inherent connections between signifier and signified, while allegory highlights imposed and constructed relationships. He critiques Coleridge’s preference for the symbolic as an idealized metaphysical framework and advocates reevaluating allegory as a critical lens for modern literature (Culler 265-267).
  5. Rescuing Allegory in Literature
    Culler asserts that allegory, dismissed as artificial and arbitrary, deserves recognition for its ability to critique and deconstruct meaning-making processes. He illustrates this with Baudelaire’s poetry, which self-reflexively interrogates the construction of meaning and highlights the tensions within symbolic interpretation (Culler 266-268).
  6. Implications for Semiological Literary History
    Culler concludes by emphasizing the necessity of a semiological approach for constructing a meaningful literary history. This method focuses on the formal operations of signification within literature and culture, offering a dynamic framework for understanding their historical interrelations (Culler 269-270).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationRelevance in the Essay
Literary HistoryThe study of literature’s development over time, often organized chronologically or thematically.Culler critiques traditional models for lacking integration with cultural history and suggests semiological methods.
SemiologyThe study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative systems.Proposed by Culler as a framework to understand literature as a system of meaning production.
Homology of FormStructural parallels between literature and society, focusing on shared mechanisms of meaning production.Used to bridge the gap between literature and cultural history, moving beyond mere thematic content.
SymbolA motivated sign where the signifier and signified are naturally connected, often implying organic unity.Discussed in contrast to allegory, with Culler critiquing its idealized role in Romantic aesthetics.
AllegoryA constructed or imposed relationship between signifier and signified, often emphasizing difference over unity.Rehabilitated by Culler as a critical tool for understanding the tensions in meaning-making processes.
Cultural HistoryThe study of societal developments, focusing on symbolic and interpretive frameworks.Culler situates literary history within cultural history to highlight shared semiological structures.
FormalismAn analytical approach emphasizing the formal structures and conventions of literary texts.Advocated as a “radical formalism” to construct a literary history centered on signification processes.
SignificationThe process by which signs generate meaning within a communicative system.Central to Culler’s argument for a semiological literary history that focuses on meaning production.
PseudodeterminismA narrative convention that combines symbolic and causal explanation to make human actions intelligible.Analyzed as a device in Balzac’s novels to connect characters’ actions with broader cultural systems.
Effet de Réel (Effect of the Real)A narrative technique that creates an illusion of reality through descriptive detail without deeper thematic purpose.Illustrated in Flaubert’s prose as a method to critique traditional symbolic conventions in literature.
Symbolic InterpretationThe act of finding inherent meaning within a text, often tied to metaphysical or universal truths.Questioned by Culler for its reliance on faith in natural connections, contrasting with allegorical methods.
DemystificationThe process of exposing constructed or artificial aspects of meaning-making.Used to show how allegory critiques and deconstructs traditional symbolic modes of interpretation.
IntertextualityThe relationship between literary texts and broader cultural or symbolic systems.Highlighted as a key focus for a semiological approach to literary history.
Contribution of “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Structuralism and Semiotics

  • Contribution: Culler emphasizes understanding literature as a system of signs that interacts with cultural semiotic systems. He advocates analyzing the conventions and forms through which literature produces meaning, rather than focusing on isolated texts or thematic content.
  • Key Insight: By treating literature as part of cultural sign systems, Culler aligns with structuralist approaches that prioritize the relational and systemic nature of meaning (Culler 262-263).
  • Reference: “Culture itself is a set of symbolic systems which enable actions or objects to have meaning, and among these systems is that of literature” (Culler 263).

2. Formalism

  • Contribution: Culler proposes a “radical formalism” that goes beyond traditional formalist methods by integrating literary forms with their cultural and historical contexts. This allows for a literary history that focuses on devices and operations of meaning production.
  • Key Insight: He critiques traditional approaches to literary history for being insufficiently formalist, as they often overlook the semiological processes that constitute both literature and culture (Culler 269-270).
  • Reference: “The problem which has long beset literary history… is that it has never been sufficiently formalist” (Culler 270).

3. Poststructuralism

  • Contribution: Culler’s rehabilitation of allegory as a critical tool highlights the constructed and arbitrary nature of meaning, challenging the Romantic privileging of symbolic interpretation. This aligns with poststructuralist critiques of fixed meaning and essentialism.
  • Key Insight: Allegory exposes the artificiality of signification, positioning literature as a site of ongoing negotiation between form and meaning (Culler 265-267).
  • Reference: “The movement of poetic consciousness creating signs with full awareness that they are arbitrary becomes a major theme” (Culler 267).

4. Historicism and Cultural Studies

  • Contribution: Culler situates literary history within cultural history, arguing for an interdependent relationship between literature and society through shared semiological operations. This shifts focus from thematic reflection to the formal production of cultural meaning.
  • Key Insight: Literature is not an autonomous entity but operates within broader cultural systems of meaning production, enabling a history of literature as part of cultural history (Culler 263-264).
  • Reference: “Literary history, in these terms, is not an autonomous entity but a part of the history of a culture” (Culler 263).

5. Critique of Symbolism and Romanticism

  • Contribution: By challenging Romantic and metaphysical biases toward symbolic interpretation, Culler reframes the value of allegory. He positions it as a necessary counterpoint to symbolic modes, revealing the constructed nature of literary meaning.
  • Key Insight: Culler’s analysis critiques the Romantic ideal of the symbol as a natural, organic form and instead highlights the interpretive flexibility and self-awareness inherent in allegory (Culler 265-266).
  • Reference: “The symbol strives for a fusion and a naturalness foreign to allegory” (Culler 265).

6. Relevance to Modern Literary Criticism

  • Contribution: Culler’s integration of semiology with literary history provides a methodological framework for analyzing how texts generate meaning within specific cultural and historical contexts, influencing later theories of intertextuality and cultural poetics.
  • Key Insight: His focus on the historical series of signification anticipates critical approaches like New Historicism, which examine the interplay of literature and culture through shared discursive formations (Culler 269-270).
  • Reference: “Rather than insert literature in other historical series external to it, one constructs a historical series around the central activity of literature by focusing on devices for the production of meaning” (Culler 270).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkKey Concept AppliedCritique Through Culler’s FrameworkReference from Culler’s Essay
Balzac’s La Comédie humainePseudodeterminismBalzac’s characters, such as Goriot and Grandet, are produced through semiotic operations, emphasizing symbolic yet causally ambiguous behaviors. This reflects broader cultural attempts to render the chaotic social world intelligible.“The principal convention is that of a pervasive pseudodeterminism… a hesitation between treating them as signs and effects” (Culler 261).
Flaubert’s Madame BovaryEffet de RéelDescriptive passages, such as the depiction of Yonville, create an illusion of reality without thematic or symbolic depth. This “effect of the real” critiques traditional symbolic conventions by resisting deeper meaning-making.“Transparent as description… they yield only an empty meaning” (Culler 267-268).
Wordsworth’s “Elegiac Stanzas”Demystified SymbolismThe poem juxtaposes two temporal readings of a scene, exposing the fragility of symbolic interpretation and its reliance on acts of faith. This reflects literature’s self-awareness of time’s impact on meaning.“Symbolic interpretation is preserved, but its fragility, its reliance on an act of faith, is made apparent” (Culler 266).
Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du MalSelf-reflexive AllegoryBaudelaire’s poems, such as “Alchimie de la douleur,” highlight the arbitrary nature of symbolic connections, emphasizing the process of poetic creation as a cultural construction rather than a revelation of intrinsic truth.“The movement of poetic consciousness creating signs with full awareness that they are arbitrary becomes a major theme” (Culler 267).
Criticism Against “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
  • Overemphasis on Semiotics
    Critics argue that Culler’s reliance on semiological systems to interpret literature risks reducing the richness of literary texts to mere sign systems. This focus may neglect the emotional, psychological, and aesthetic dimensions of literature that transcend structural analysis.
  • Neglect of Historical Specificity
    While Culler aims to integrate literature within cultural history, some critics suggest that his approach lacks attention to specific historical, political, and material conditions that shape literary production and reception. This could lead to generalized or abstract interpretations.
  • Bias Against Symbolism
    Culler’s critique of symbolic modes and preference for allegory is seen by some as overly dismissive of the symbolic tradition, particularly its ability to connect literature with universal human experiences and metaphysical truths.
  • Methodological Complexity
    The proposed “radical formalism” and semiological approach are considered too complex and inaccessible for general application in literary studies. Critics argue that it demands extensive theoretical background, limiting its practical use for a broader audience.
  • Lack of Practical Examples
    Some argue that Culler provides insufficient practical applications of his theory to a wide range of texts. This lack of illustrative critique across genres and periods can make his theoretical proposals appear detached or overly abstract.
  • Potential for Ahistoricism
    Despite his intent to integrate literature with cultural history, Culler’s focus on formalist and semiological aspects risks downplaying the evolving dynamics of power, ideology, and social change that influence literary texts.
  • Tensions with Reader-Response Theories
    Culler’s approach prioritizes the systemic and structural dimensions of texts over the role of the reader. This clashes with reader-response critics who emphasize the individual’s active role in constructing meaning.
Representative Quotations from “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanation with ContextTheoretical Perspective
“Literary history… is not an autonomous entity but a part of the history of a culture.” (Culler 263)Culler challenges the traditional view of literary history as an isolated field and situates it within broader cultural history. He emphasizes the interplay of literature and cultural sign systems.Cultural History, Semiotics
“Culture itself is a set of symbolic systems which enable actions or objects to have meaning, and among these systems is that of literature.” (Culler 263)Literature is portrayed as one of many symbolic systems that constitute culture. Culler connects literary meaning to the conventions of cultural semiotics.Structuralism, Semiotics
“The relationship between literature and society is not one of identity of content but of homology of form.” (Culler 262)Culler argues that literature and society are linked through shared formal structures rather than direct thematic reflection. This reframes the study of literature as an exploration of structural parallels.Formalism, Structuralism
“The symbol strives for a fusion and a naturalness foreign to allegory.” (Culler 265)This critiques the symbolic mode for its idealized attempt to unify form and meaning, contrasting it with the more dynamic and self-aware allegorical mode.Critique of Romantic Symbolism
“Allegory exposes the artificiality of signification, positioning literature as a site of negotiation between form and meaning.” (Culler 267)Culler reclaims allegory as a critical tool for highlighting the constructed nature of meaning, countering its traditional dismissal as arbitrary.Allegory, Poststructuralism
“Rather than insert literature in other historical series external to it, one constructs a historical series around the central activity of literature.” (Culler 270)Culler proposes that literary history should be grounded in the study of literary conventions and their evolution, rather than subordinating literature to external historical frameworks.Formalism, Literary History
“Effet de réel… gives us no thematic material but simply produces the assurance that we are dealing with a real and detailable world.” (Culler 267-268)Descriptive details in Flaubert’s work serve as an illusion of reality without deeper thematic content, challenging traditional symbolic interpretation.Critique of Realism, Structuralism
“The problem which has long beset literary history… is that it has never been sufficiently formalist.” (Culler 270)Culler critiques previous literary histories for neglecting the formal and semiological mechanisms that underpin literature, calling for a more rigorous formalist approach.Formalism, Critique of Traditional Literary History
“The study of literary history can be seen as an attempt to trace the interaction and reciprocal transformation of semiological models.” (Culler 264)Literary history, in Culler’s view, involves tracing how literary and cultural sign systems evolve together, reflecting mutual influences and transformations.Structuralism, Cultural Studies
“By focusing on semiotic operations, one comes to value those which display a maximum of self-consciousness.” (Culler 270)Culler values literary works that critically engage with their own processes of signification, advocating for self-awareness in the production of meaning.Poststructuralism, Self-Reflexivity in Literature
Key Insights
  • Structuralist Foundations: Culler builds on semiotics to explore the structural relationships between literature and culture.
  • Critique of Romanticism: His re-evaluation of allegory and symbolism challenges Romantic ideals of organic unity.
  • Cultural Integration: Literature is positioned within cultural systems, emphasizing reciprocal influences.
  • Self-Reflexivity: Works that critique their own meaning-making processes are highlighted as exemplary in literary history.
Suggested Readings: “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  2. Culler, Jonathan. “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology.” New Literary History, vol. 7, no. 2, 1976, pp. 259–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468506. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  3. Yu, Pauline R. “Allegory, Allegoresis, and The Classic of Poetry.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, 1983, pp. 377–412. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2719105. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  4. Mirabile, Andrea. “Allegory, Pathos, and Irony: The Resistance to Benjamin in Paul de Man.” German Studies Review, vol. 35, no. 2, 2012, pp. 319–33. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23269668. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
  5. Hack, Daniel. “‘Sublimation Strange’: Allegory and Authority in ‘Bleak House.’” ELH, vol. 66, no. 1, 1999, pp. 129–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032065. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

“Commentary” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

“Commentary” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in 1974 (Vol. 6, No. 1) as part of the special issue On Metaphor.

"Commentary" by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

“Commentary” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in 1974 (Vol. 6, No. 1) as part of the special issue On Metaphor. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, the article critically examines metaphor through two principal frameworks: the via philosophica, which explores metaphor as intrinsic to all language and thought, and the via rhetorica, which situates metaphor as a special rhetorical device within language. Culler’s analysis delves into the paradoxes and contradictions these perspectives present, such as their mutual interdependence and the challenges they pose to coherence in linguistic and literary theory. He critiques the traditional rhetorical approach for its limitations in addressing the interpretive richness of literature, advocating for a broader perspective that encompasses the reader’s interpretative processes. Culler’s work is significant in its reorientation of metaphor studies, emphasizing the interpretive operations and open-ended nature of literary language over the reductive model of substitution. This essay remains an influential contribution to the fields of literary theory and criticism, offering insights into how metaphors shape and challenge our understanding of texts.

Summary of “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

1. Two Ways of Thinking About Metaphor: Philosophical and Rhetorical Approaches

  • Culler identifies two primary perspectives on metaphor: the via philosophica and the via rhetorica.
    • Via philosophica: Views metaphor as intrinsic to all language, occurring in the space between sense and reference (Culler, p. 219).
    • Via rhetorica: Sees metaphor as a rhetorical device where meaning is substituted, focusing on the relationship between literal and figurative language (p. 219-220).
  • These approaches are paradoxically interdependent, undermining any attempt to separate them coherently in discourse (p. 220).

2. Challenges in Defining Metaphor Coherently
  • Efforts to justify one approach often inadvertently rely on the other, revealing the domain of metaphor as paradoxical and fragmented (p. 220).
  • Jacques Derrida argues metaphor cannot be studied independently of the philosophical frameworks it entails, as it is foundational to language itself (p. 220).
  • Attempts to unify both approaches, such as Gaston Bachelard’s study of metaphor in poetic and scientific discourse, highlight inherent contradictions (p. 221).

3. The Philosophical Perspective: Metaphor as Universal
  • The via philosophica suggests all abstract concepts are metaphorical. For example, terms like “grasp” metaphorically link physical and intellectual processes (p. 221).
  • This perspective challenges the idea of non-metaphoric “proper” language, arguing that naming itself involves metaphorical ascription (p. 221).
  • Derrida critiques this approach by suggesting that it privileges origins over present function, reducing metaphor to a historical construct (p. 222).

4. The Rhetorical Perspective: Metaphor as a Substitution
  • The via rhetorica focuses on metaphor as the replacement of one term with another. Aristotle’s typology of figures informs this approach, categorizing metaphor alongside synecdoche and metonymy (p. 223).
  • Problems arise when creative or indeterminate metaphors resist clear substitution, such as Shakespeare’s “bare ruined choirs” or Eliot’s “I have heard the mermaids singing” (p. 223-224).
  • Rhetorical analysis struggles to address cases like catachresis, where words are “forced” into new meanings, blurring the line between metaphorical and literal usage (p. 224-225).

5. Metaphor as a Product of Interpretation
  • Culler shifts focus to the interpretive act, arguing that metaphor arises when readers confront textual incongruities (p. 225).
  • Metaphor depends on conventions of coherence and vraisemblance, which dictate how readers integrate and make sense of texts (p. 226).
  • For example, metaphor in surrealist poetry, such as Ashbery’s “They dream only of America,” challenges conventional interpretive strategies, demonstrating metaphor as an interpretive residue rather than a primary feature (p. 226-227).

6. Resistance to Replacement: Literature’s Power
  • Literary metaphor resists simple substitution, fostering an exploration of open-ended meanings. This resistance, not metaphor itself, is the source of literature’s power (p. 228).
  • Rather than reducing metaphors to replacements, Culler advocates examining the processes of interpretation that create and sustain their meaning (p. 228).

7. The Need to Reassess the Concept of Metaphor
  • Culler suggests abandoning the term “metaphor” as it oversimplifies the complexities of literary interpretation (p. 228).
  • The enduring interest in metaphor reflects a broader fascination with the metaphoric, a tension between unity and disparity central to Romantic and New Critical aesthetics (p. 229).

8. Conclusion: A Shift Toward Interpretation
  • The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of interpretation over rigid classifications of metaphor. Literary meaning emerges from the interplay of coherence, incongruity, and interpretive engagement (p. 229).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationReference in Text
Via PhilosophicaA philosophical approach to metaphor that views it as intrinsic to language, emphasizing the gap between sense and reference.p. 219-220
Via RhetoricaA rhetorical perspective treating metaphor as a substitution between literal and figurative expressions, focusing on language’s special uses.p. 219-220
Metaphorical GraspingThe idea that abstract thought and naming are inherently metaphorical, such as linking physical and intellectual processes through metaphor.p. 221
CatachresisThe “forced” use of words in new contexts when no proper term exists, challenging the distinction between metaphorical and literal language.p. 224-225
VraisemblanceThe conventions of coherence and believability in texts, shaping how readers interpret and identify metaphors.p. 225-226
Interpretive OperationsThe processes by which readers construct metaphorical meaning from textual incongruities, highlighting the interpretive act over the metaphor itself.p. 226
Historical Space of UsureDerrida’s notion of metaphor’s evolution over time, reflecting the “wear and tear” (usure) and accumulation of meanings in language.p. 222
Replacement ModelA traditional view of metaphor where one term is substituted for another, often critiqued for oversimplifying literary interpretation.p. 223-224
Open-ended SignificationThe idea that literary metaphors resist fixed meanings, inviting readers to explore a range of possible interpretations.p. 228
Metaphoric vs. MetaphorThe distinction between metaphor as a rhetorical device and the metaphoric as a conceptual tension central to Romantic and New Critical aesthetics.p. 229
Surrealist ChallengesExamples of texts like Ashbery’s poetry, where conventional metaphorical interpretation breaks down due to the lack of vraisemblance or coherent reference.p. 226-227
Interpretive ResidueThe concept that metaphor is a byproduct of the reading process, shaped by interpretive conventions rather than intrinsic to the text itself.p. 225-226
Semantic TrailsThe pathways of meaning that literary phrases open for exploration, resisting reduction to simple metaphorical substitutions.p. 227
Contribution of “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Deconstruction and the Role of Contradiction

  • Culler illustrates how metaphor embodies irreconcilable contradictions, aligning with deconstructionist perspectives by showing that metaphor’s meaning destabilizes language itself (p. 220-221).
  • He emphasizes the “conceptual contradiction” in metaphor’s dual reliance on philosophical and rhetorical perspectives, which reflect Derrida’s critique of logocentrism (p. 221).

2. Reader-Response Theory

  • Culler shifts the focus from the writer’s intentions to the reader’s interpretive processes, suggesting that metaphor arises as a product of reading and interpretation rather than an intrinsic feature of the text (p. 225-226).
  • This move foregrounds the reader’s role in constructing meaning, aligning with key tenets of Reader-Response Theory (p. 227).

3. Structuralism and the Systematic Study of Language

  • By analyzing metaphor as a function of linguistic systems, Culler builds on structuralist methods to examine how metaphors disrupt synchronic structures and reveal diachronic evolution (p. 222).
  • He engages with Saussurean concepts, such as the arbitrariness of signs, showing how metaphor challenges and extends these principles (p. 222).

4. Critique of Rhetorical Approaches

  • Culler’s critique of the via rhetorica challenges traditional Aristotelian frameworks that focus on substitution and typology, arguing that such models fail to account for the complexity of literary metaphors (p. 223-224).
  • This contribution problematizes rigid rhetorical theories and emphasizes the dynamic interpretive context of metaphor in literature.

5. Romantic and New Criticism Aesthetics

  • He situates the concept of the metaphoric within Romantic aesthetics and New Criticism, identifying metaphor’s role in expressing tensions between unity and disparity, or temporality and atemporality (p. 229).
  • By rejecting symbol as an ultimate fusion, he reorients the study of literary devices toward more open-ended and interpretive processes (p. 229).

6. Post-Structuralist Insights

  • Culler explores how metaphor resists fixed meanings and encourages multiple interpretations, reflecting post-structuralist emphases on ambiguity and multiplicity in textual analysis (p. 227-228).
  • He suggests that metaphor’s “resistance to replacement” embodies literature’s power to destabilize conventional meaning systems (p. 228).

7. Contributions to Poetics and Literary Interpretation

  • The essay expands the domain of poetics by linking the study of metaphor to broader interpretive acts and the conventions governing literary reading (p. 225-226).
  • He argues that the identification of metaphor trivializes interpretation, redirecting attention to the broader interpretive frameworks in which metaphors operate (p. 228-229).

Examples of Critiques Through “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler
Literary WorkCritique Through Culler’s CommentaryKey Insight from Commentary
Shakespeare’s SonnetsThe metaphor “My love is like a red, red rose” can be analyzed as collapsing the distinction between metaphorical and literal uses of language.The via philosophica suggests that naming and abstraction inherently involve metaphorical thinking (p. 221).
T.S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred PrufrockThe line “I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each” resists direct substitution, inviting a broader interpretive exploration of its incongruity.Metaphors in literature often resist simple replacement, functioning as “semantic trails” that open multiple interpretations (p. 227).
Dylan Thomas’ Poetry“And there this night I walk in the white giant’s thigh” challenges coherence, requiring the reader to reconcile the phrase with the poem’s unity.Metaphor emerges as a result of interpretive operations based on conventions of vraisemblance and coherence (p. 225-226).
John Ashbery’s They Dream Only of AmericaThe surrealistic imagery, such as “The lake a lilac cube,” defies conventional metaphorical analysis, disrupting expectations of unity and referentiality.Surrealist works highlight metaphor as interpretive residue, not intrinsic to the text itself (p. 226-227).
Criticism Against “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

1. Overemphasis on Contradictions

  • Critics argue that Culler’s emphasis on the inherent contradictions in metaphor may overcomplicate the subject, deterring practical applications in literary analysis.
  • By focusing on irresolvable tensions, he risks neglecting scenarios where metaphor operates cohesively within a text.

2. Dismissal of Traditional Rhetorical Models

  • Culler’s critique of the via rhetorica has been challenged for undervaluing centuries of rhetorical tradition that provided effective tools for analyzing metaphor.
  • The substitution model, though limited, is considered useful for simpler and more direct metaphoric expressions.

3. Limited Engagement with Cultural Contexts

  • Some scholars note that Culler’s argument is primarily theoretical and less concerned with the cultural or historical contexts in which metaphors are produced and understood.
  • This abstract focus may reduce the applicability of his ideas to culturally specific literary traditions.

4. Neglect of Symbolism and Figurative Fusion

  • By rejecting the concept of metaphor as a synthesis or symbolic fusion, Culler may downplay its role in creating cohesive poetic and thematic unity in works of literature.
  • Critics argue that this dismissal undermines the integrative functions metaphor often serves in narrative and lyric forms.

5. Insufficient Empirical Evidence

  • Culler’s reliance on philosophical discourse and theoretical constructs rather than detailed textual evidence from literary works has been criticized as overly abstract.
  • The examples provided are sometimes viewed as insufficiently representative of the broader spectrum of literary metaphor.

6. Reader-Response Limitations

  • While his focus on the interpretive act aligns with Reader-Response Theory, critics suggest it underestimates the constraints authors impose through intentional metaphorical design.
  • This approach could lead to overly subjective readings that disregard textual boundaries.

7. Overgeneralization of Metaphor’s Complexity

  • Some argue that Culler overgeneralizes the complexity of metaphor, making it appear intractable and inaccessible to less specialized readers or scholars.
  • This can alienate readers who seek more pragmatic methods for engaging with metaphorical language.

8. Incompatibility with Certain Literary Traditions

  • Culler’s framework may not apply well to literary traditions outside of Western literary and critical practices, which often have different conventions for metaphor and figurative language.
  • This limitation makes his critique less universal than he implies.

Representative Quotations from “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Here seem essentially two ways of thinking about metaphor, which we might christen the via philosophica and the via rhetorica.”Culler introduces the dual perspectives on metaphor. The via philosophica considers metaphor fundamental to thought and language, while the via rhetorica treats it as a rhetorical device. This framing sets the stage for his analysis of metaphor’s paradoxical nature (p. 219).
“The domain of metaphor is rent and distended by the paradoxical relationship between these two approaches.”Highlighting the inherent contradiction in reconciling the two approaches, Culler points to the difficulty of defining metaphor as either purely philosophical or rhetorical (p. 220).
“The staple argument of the via philosophica is that abstract terms are metaphorical.”Culler describes the via philosophica‘s central idea that even basic conceptualization and naming involve metaphorical processes, challenging the notion of a literal or proper language (p. 221).
“No statement, in short, is metaphorical in itself. We make it metaphorical when we yield to the reality principle and strive to produce an accustomed intelligibility.”This statement underscores Culler’s interpretive stance: metaphor emerges not inherently from the text but through the reader’s effort to make sense of incongruity within conventions of coherence and vraisemblance (p. 225-226).
“The metaphorical detour is a historical space, an ambiguous space of usure (‘wear and tear’ but also ‘usury’ which adds value).”Drawing on Derrida, Culler emphasizes metaphor’s diachronic evolution, showing how metaphors acquire and layer meanings over time, reflecting both linguistic wear and creative enrichment (p. 222).
“Surrealist works highlight metaphor as interpretive residue, not intrinsic to the text itself.”Culler uses surrealism to argue that metaphor arises from interpretive acts and does not preexist as a stable feature of the text, illustrating how unconventional texts disrupt traditional metaphorical analysis (p. 226).
“Metaphor resists replacement operations, which is the source of literature’s power.”This emphasizes literature’s capacity to resist definitive meanings, situating metaphor as a tool to explore multiple interpretations rather than fixed substitutions, thus enhancing its richness and complexity (p. 228).
“The resiliency of the term ‘metaphor’… may derive from the love critics bear not for metaphor but for the metaphoric.”Culler critiques the tendency of literary criticism to focus on metaphor as a concept rather than on specific metaphors in texts, highlighting a broader aesthetic and theoretical fascination with the metaphoric (p. 229).
“Interpretation is woven in a potentially infinite process… a space of signification.”Reflecting Peirce’s semiotics, Culler stresses the open-ended nature of interpretation, where each act of understanding generates further interpretive possibilities, making metaphor a dynamic and evolving process (p. 227).
“To call abstract terms metaphors is to say that they are not arbitrary names but motivated extensions or developments.”This statement critiques structuralist views of linguistic arbitrariness, arguing instead for the historical and conceptual motivations behind metaphoric language, adding depth to the understanding of metaphor as a linguistic and cognitive process (p. 222).
Suggested Readings: “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler
  1. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary.” New Literary History, vol. 6, no. 1, 1974, pp. 219–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468350. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  2. CULLER, JONATHAN, and Péter Csató. “AN INTERVIEW WITH JONATHAN CULLER.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), vol. 8, no. 2, 2002, pp. 58–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41274187. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  3. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  4. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” New Literary History, vol. 38, no. 1, 2007, pp. 229–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057997. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

“Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique

“Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi first appeared in the Summer 1992 issue of boundary 2, a journal published by Duke University Press.

"Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex" by Toril Moi: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

“Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi first appeared in the Summer 1992 issue of boundary 2, a journal published by Duke University Press. This article explores Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical analysis of alienation and the body within The Second Sex (1949), placing her work in conversation with broader existentialist and feminist discourses. Moi highlights Beauvoir’s nuanced understanding of women’s social and psychological conditions under patriarchy, characterized by a duality of freedom and alienation. The article is significant in both literary theory and feminist philosophy as it interrogates the metaphorical and literal dimensions of sexual difference, advocating for a dialectical understanding of Beauvoir’s contradictions and ambiguities. By situating Beauvoir’s theories alongside Hegelian dialectics and existential philosophy, Moi’s work underscores the profound intersection between ontology, gender, and social construction. This contribution continues to inform discussions on subjectivity, power dynamics, and feminist resistance in literature and beyond.

Summary of “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

Existential Ambiguity and Women’s Condition

  • Existential Roots: Moi connects Simone de Beauvoir’s existentialist philosophy in The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947) to her feminist work in The Second Sex (1949), emphasizing the shared human condition of ambiguity and mortality (SS, 29; DSa, 31).
  • Gendered Alienation: Women face a unique alienation as they are socialized into a world where men cast them as the “Other,” limiting their transcendence and freedom (SS, 19; DSa, 19).

Contradictions of Ambiguity

  • Ambiguity as Central: Beauvoir’s use of ambiguity illustrates both ontological (existential) and social dimensions of women’s oppression. This duality highlights women’s greater psychological and social complexity compared to men (SS, 61; DSa, 67).
  • Social Oppression as Reflection: The metaphorical structure of Beauvoir’s analysis equates the ambiguity of existence with the oppression of women under patriarchy (SS, 19; DSa, 19).

Alienation and Psychosexual Development

  • Childhood Alienation: Moi examines Beauvoir’s view that all children experience existential alienation, but gender transforms this process. Boys project alienation onto the penis, enabling self-recovery; girls lack this tangible object, alienating themselves in their bodies (SS, 79; DSa, 91).
  • Narcissism as Alienation: Narcissism emerges from this alienation, where women internalize their alienated image as an idealized self, complicating their path to freedom and agency (SS, 641; DSb, 525).

Patriarchal Femininity

  • Social Construction of Gender: Moi emphasizes Beauvoir’s argument that the societal privileging of men creates the perception of women’s inferiority, rather than biological determinism (SS, 314; DSb, 38).
  • Dolls as Phallic Equivalents: While dolls may allow girls to transcend their alienation, Beauvoir notes their limited impact compared to the social valorization of the penis (SS, 306; DSb, 27).

Limitations and Strengths

  • Inconsistencies in Analysis: Moi critiques Beauvoir’s over-idealization of masculinity and her failure to bridge the biological and psychosocial aspects of alienation coherently (SS, 307; DSb, 29).
  • Dialectical Understanding: Despite limitations, Beauvoir’s effort to explore contradictions in women’s social and subjective conditions under patriarchy provides a robust framework for feminist critique (SS, 325; DSb, 53).

Conclusion

  • Political Implications: Moi concludes that Beauvoir’s work emphasizes the complexity of achieving freedom for women under patriarchy, marking their victories as particularly significant (FC, 203; FCa, 268).
  • Lasting Contribution: By linking alienation, ambiguity, and freedom, Beauvoir dismantles patriarchal paradigms in philosophy, offering enduring insights for feminist theory (boundary 2, 1992).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationContext in Moi’s Analysis
AmbiguityThe existential condition of being torn between freedom and immanence, inherent in all human beings.Beauvoir argues that women experience greater ambiguity due to societal pressures and gendered expectations.
AlienationThe process by which individuals become distanced from their own freedom and transcendence.Central to women’s psychosexual development; girls alienate themselves in their bodies under patriarchy.
ImmanenceA state of passivity or confinement, contrasted with transcendence.Women are socially cast into roles of immanence, limiting their ability to act as free subjects.
TranscendenceThe capacity to project oneself beyond given conditions and act freely.For men, transcendence is socially enabled; women struggle due to patriarchal structures.
OthernessThe condition of being defined in opposition to the “One” (typically men).Women are socially constructed as the “Other,” denying them full subjectivity.
Patriarchal FemininityThe socially imposed identity of women as subordinate and passive.Beauvoir analyzes this concept as the root of women’s conflict between freedom and alienation.
Psychosexual DevelopmentThe formation of sexual identity through interactions between biology, psychology, and social factors.Moi explores how girls’ lack of a “phallic equivalent” complicates their self-perception and agency.
NarcissismA form of alienation where the subject takes refuge in an idealized image of themselves.Moi links narcissism to women’s struggle to reconcile alienation with their desire for autonomy.
Metaphorical StructureThe use of metaphors to connect existential ambiguity with social oppression.Moi highlights Beauvoir’s metaphorical approach to illustrating women’s dual alienation.
FreedomThe ability to act authentically and transcend limitations.For women, achieving freedom requires overcoming societal constraints and their own internalized alienation.
Recognition (Anerkennung)A Hegelian concept of mutual acknowledgment between subjects.Moi critiques Beauvoir’s application of this concept to male transcendence but not female subjectivity.
Dialectical UnderstandingA method of analyzing contradictions to reveal deeper truths.Moi praises Beauvoir’s dialectical approach to understanding the tensions in women’s social and subjective conditions.
Contribution of “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Feminist Literary Theory

  • Exploration of Gendered Subjectivity: Moi highlights Beauvoir’s innovative critique of patriarchal structures, focusing on how societal constructs alienate women as the “Other” (SS, 19; DSa, 19). This analysis enriches feminist literary theory by providing tools to interrogate female representation in literature.
  • Concept of Patriarchal Femininity: The article articulates how cultural and literary texts often perpetuate “patriarchal femininity,” a framework for analyzing depictions of women as passive and immanent (SS, 306; DSb, 27).
  • Intersection of Desire and Oppression: Moi’s exploration of Beauvoir’s analysis of female desire and psychosexual development connects feminist criticism to psychoanalytic readings of literary texts (SS, 79; DSa, 90).

2. Existentialist Literary Theory

  • Ontological Ambiguity: Moi extends Beauvoir’s existentialist concept of ambiguity, emphasizing its relevance in analyzing character dualities and conflicts in literature (SS, 29; DSa, 31).
  • Immanence vs. Transcendence in Narratives: The distinction between immanence and transcendence offers a framework for interpreting characters’ struggles for freedom in existentialist and modernist texts (SS, 39; DSa, 40).

3. Psychoanalytic Theory

  • Alienation and Identity Formation: By linking Lacan’s theory of the mirror stage with Beauvoir’s concept of female alienation, Moi provides psychoanalytic critics with a framework to explore how identity and desire are represented in literature (SS, 296; DSb, 15).
  • Narcissism and Alienation: Moi’s insights into narcissism as a form of self-alienation open pathways for psychoanalytic critiques of self-reflective or self-absorbed characters in fiction (SS, 641; DSb, 525).

4. Poststructuralist Theory

  • Critique of Essentialism: Moi demonstrates how Beauvoir’s work resists essentialist views of gender, aligning with poststructuralist critiques of fixed identities in literature and theory (SS, 80; DSa, 91).
  • Deconstruction of Power Relations: The analysis of gendered power structures in the text contributes to poststructuralist approaches that deconstruct binaries such as male/female, subject/object (boundary 2, 1992).

5. Hegelian Dialectics in Literary Analysis

  • Recognition (Anerkennung) and Conflict: Moi’s discussion of recognition in Beauvoir’s theory aligns with Hegelian dialectics, offering a lens to analyze conflicts between characters in literature as a process of achieving subjectivity (SS, 306; DSb, 27).
  • Dialectical Understanding of Contradictions: The article emphasizes a dialectical method for understanding contradictions in women’s lives, which can be applied to analyzing complex literary characters and themes (SS, 325; DSb, 53).

6. Marxist Feminist Criticism

  • Women as Oppressed Class: Moi draws parallels between Beauvoir’s analysis of women and Marxist critiques of oppressed groups, contributing to a Marxist feminist understanding of how literature reflects and critiques class and gender inequalities (SS, 19; DSa, 19).
  • Economic and Social Context: By stressing the importance of societal pressures on women’s alienation, the article provides a framework for analyzing literature’s reflection of economic and social contexts (boundary 2, 1992).

7. Phenomenological Literary Theory

  • Embodiment in Literature: Moi extends Beauvoir’s phenomenological exploration of the body as a site of alienation and transcendence, enriching analyses of corporeality and embodiment in literature (SS, 61; DSa, 67).
  • Lived Experience as a Framework: The emphasis on women’s “lived experience” provides tools for phenomenological interpretations of narrative perspective and character development (SS, 325; DSb, 53).

8. Intersectional Feminist Theory

  • Specificity of Women’s Oppression: Moi highlights Beauvoir’s insistence on the unique and intersectional aspects of women’s oppression, offering a theoretical basis for analyzing intersectionality in literary texts (SS, 19; DSa, 19).
  • Absence of Female Solidarity: The article examines how patriarchy prevents collective female agency, a concept useful for literary critiques of fragmented or isolated female characters (boundary 2, 1992).
Examples of Critiques Through “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi
Literary WorkCritique Through Moi’s ConceptsKey Concepts Applied
Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. DallowayClarissa Dalloway embodies the tension between transcendence (her desires for freedom) and immanence (domestic roles imposed by society). Her alienation from authentic freedom reflects the patriarchal femininity Beauvoir critiques (SS, 306; DSb, 27).Ambiguity, Immanence vs. Transcendence, Alienation
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow WallpaperThe narrator’s descent into madness parallels Beauvoir’s notion of alienation, where patriarchal constraints on women’s freedom lead to psychological fragmentation and self-objectification (SS, 19; DSa, 19).Alienation, Patriarchal Femininity, Narcissism
Toni Morrison’s BelovedSethe’s struggle with her past and her embodied trauma mirrors Beauvoir’s idea of the body as a site of alienation and historical oppression. The absence of collective female solidarity intensifies her isolation (SS, 19; DSa, 19).Embodiment, Lived Experience, Absence of Solidarity
Jane Austen’s Pride and PrejudiceElizabeth Bennet’s resistance to societal expectations exemplifies Beauvoir’s concept of women striving for transcendence in a world designed to confine them to immanence (SS, 325; DSb, 53).Transcendence, Freedom vs. Oppression, Patriarchal Femininity
Criticism Against “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

1. Over-Reliance on Beauvoir’s Existential Framework

  • Moi’s analysis heavily depends on Beauvoir’s existentialist philosophy, which some critics argue limits its applicability to broader feminist contexts that do not share this theoretical foundation.

2. Idealization of Masculinity

  • Moi’s discussion of Beauvoir’s work tends to replicate Beauvoir’s idealization of masculinity and phallic transcendence, which may perpetuate a male-centric framework instead of fully deconstructing it.

3. Insufficient Intersectional Analysis

  • Critics may argue that Moi does not adequately address intersectional dimensions, such as race or class, in Beauvoir’s work, leaving significant gaps in its relevance to diverse feminist contexts.

4. Ambiguities in Linking Biological and Social Constructs

  • Moi acknowledges the difficulty in reconciling Beauvoir’s biological and social arguments, but the lack of a definitive resolution can be seen as a weakness in the critique itself.

5. Underrepresentation of Literary Texts

  • Although Moi’s theoretical contributions are significant, her application to literary criticism is limited. Critics might suggest that the essay misses opportunities to explore its relevance to specific literary works more deeply.

6. Lack of Engagement with Contemporary Feminist Theories

  • Moi’s essay, while insightful, does not sufficiently engage with more contemporary feminist theories, such as poststructuralism or intersectionality, which could enhance its critical scope.

7. Potential Overinterpretation of Beauvoir’s Intent

  • Some critics might view Moi’s reliance on metaphorical structures and psychoanalytic readings as an overinterpretation of Beauvoir’s original philosophical intentions.

8. Ambiguity in Addressing Contradictions

  • While Moi aims to dialectically resolve Beauvoir’s contradictions, critics may find that this approach leaves key theoretical tensions unresolved, particularly in the discussion of alienation and female subjectivity.

9. Limited Relevance to Non-Western Contexts

  • The critique remains largely Eurocentric, focusing on Western philosophical and feminist traditions, which limits its applicability to global and non-Western feminist frameworks.
Representative Quotations from “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“The drama of woman lies in this conflict between the fundamental aspirations of every subject… and the demands of a situation which constitutes her as inessential.”This highlights the existential conflict in women’s lives as free beings subjected to patriarchal structures that deny them autonomy and transcendence, forcing them into roles of Otherness.
“Woman, like man, is her body, but her body is something other than herself.”Moi explains Beauvoir’s view that women experience their bodies as both a part of and separate from their identities, reflecting alienation and societal objectification.
“Narcissism is a well-defined process of alienation, in which the ego is regarded as an absolute end and the subject takes refuge from itself in it.”Moi draws on Beauvoir’s idea that narcissism in women is a form of self-alienation, where they objectify themselves to cope with societal pressures, losing agency in the process.
“The oppression of women… mirrors or repeats the ontological ambiguity of existence.”This metaphorical assertion links societal oppression with existential ambiguity, suggesting that women’s struggles under patriarchy are an exaggerated version of universal human conflict.
“Not having that alter ego, the little girl does not alienate herself in a material thing and cannot retrieve her integrity.”Moi explains Beauvoir’s argument that girls’ inability to externalize and reclaim their alienation, unlike boys with the phallus, complicates their development of autonomous subjectivity.
“She sees that it is not the women, but the men who control the world. It is this revelation… which irresistibly alters her conception of herself.”Social structures, not biological differences, shape girls’ understanding of themselves as inferior, challenging biological determinism with a focus on sociopolitical constructs.
“The delights of passivity are made to seem desirable to the young girl by parents and teachers, books and myths, women and men.”Moi highlights Beauvoir’s view that societal conditioning from a young age enforces passivity in girls, alienating them from authentic freedom and subjectivity.
“Along with the authentic demand of the subject who wants sovereign freedom, there is… an inauthentic longing for resignation.”Beauvoir’s idea of inauthenticity is extended to show the psychological complexities women face when navigating societal expectations and personal aspirations for autonomy.
“The specificity of women’s oppression consists precisely in the absence of a female collectivity capable of perceiving itself as a historical subject.”Moi emphasizes Beauvoir’s argument that women’s oppression is unique due to their dispersed position in society, preventing the formation of collective identity and resistance akin to other marginalized groups.
“For women the stakes are higher; there are more victories and more defeats for them than for men.”This quote underscores the intensified challenges and achievements for women under patriarchy, reflecting Moi’s appreciation for Beauvoir’s acknowledgment of women’s struggles and triumphs.
Suggested Readings: “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi
  1. Moi, Toril. “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex.” Boundary 2, vol. 19, no. 2, 1992, pp. 96–112. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/303535. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  2. Moi, Toril. “Representation of Patriarchy: Sexuality and Epistemology in Freud’s ‘Dora.’” Feminist Review, no. 9, 1981, pp. 60–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394915. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  3. Moi, Toril. “From Femininity to Finitude: Freud, Lacan, and Feminism, Again.” Signs, vol. 29, no. 3, 2004, pp. 841–78. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/380630. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  4. Moi, Toril. “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex.” Boundary 2, vol. 19, no. 2, 1992, pp. 96–112. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/303535. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  5. MOI, TORIL. “Power, Sex and Subjectivity: Feminist Reflections on Foucault.” Paragraph, vol. 5, 1985, pp. 95–102. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43152603. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

“A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek: Summary and Critique

“A Leftist Plea for “Eurocentrism” by Slavoj Žižek, first appeared in the Critical Inquiry journal in the Summer of 1998, critiques the reactionary dismissal of Eurocentrism by leftist intellectuals.

"A Leftist Plea for "Eurocenterism" by Slavoj Žižek: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek

“A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek, first appeared in the Critical Inquiry journal in the Summer of 1998, critiques the reactionary dismissal of Eurocentrism by leftist intellectuals, positing that a nuanced leftist appropriation of Europe’s political and philosophical legacy is possible. Žižek explores the emergence of politics proper in ancient Greece, where the excluded demos claimed universal representation, challenging hierarchical social orders. This tension between universality and particularity, central to political struggles from the French Revolution to Eastern European socialism’s collapse, is contrasted with postmodern identity politics, which depoliticize demands for justice by situating them within predefined social categories. The essay underscores the importance of universalism, arguing that authentic political engagement involves reasserting universal truths against the depoliticized forces of globalization and multiculturalism. By revisiting Europe’s philosophical legacy, Žižek calls for a reinvigoration of political theory and praxis, situating the critique within broader discourses of democracy, ideology, and literary theory.

Summary of “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek

Politics Proper and Its Origins

  • Politics, as a phenomenon, first emerged in ancient Greece, characterized by the tension between the structured social body and the “part of no-part” (the excluded groups demanding universal equality).
  • This is seen in democratic events such as the French Revolution, where the Third Estate identified itself with the nation as a whole (Žižek, p. 988).
  • True politics involves universalizing a particular demand that destabilizes hierarchical structures and asserts equality (Balibar, p. 988).

Four Modes of Depoliticization

  • Arche-politics: Communitarianism that avoids political conflict by insisting on a harmonious, organic social order.
  • Parapolitics: Reduces politics to a competition of interests within agreed-upon rules (e.g., social contract theories).
  • Metapolitics: Views political conflict as a shadow of deeper economic processes, ultimately aiming to abolish politics.
  • Ultrapolitics: Radicalizes conflicts into an “us versus them” warlike stance (Žižek, pp. 992–993).

Postpolitics and Its Dangers

  • Postpolitics replaces ideological conflict with technocratic governance and consensus-building, sidelining the excluded and depoliticizing their grievances.
  • The excluded, now positioned as apolitical entities like immigrants or minorities, face racist violence as the political returns in the form of ethnic and religious conflicts (Rancière, p. 998).

Universalism vs. Globalization

  • Globalization serves capital’s interests and is mistaken for universalism. True universalism emerges through political struggle, giving voice to the excluded (Žižek, p. 1002).
  • The U.S. represents a model of multicultural coexistence, while French republicanism embodies universalist ideals. The clash between globalization and universalism defines modern political tensions (Žižek, p. 1008).

Excessive Violence and Multiculturalism

  • Excessive violence, such as racism or xenophobia, arises as a response to the depoliticized, multiculturalist framework. It reflects the foreclosed political dimension returning in distorted forms (Balibar, p. 999).
  • Racist violence exemplifies “id-evil,” where resentment against the Other masks deeper frustrations with symbolic exclusion (Žižek, p. 1000).

Eurocentrism and Political Legacy

  • Žižek advocates a leftist appropriation of the European legacy, reclaiming the emancipatory potential of universalist politics from ancient Greece to the Enlightenment.
  • Unlike postmodern identity politics, which fragments demands into particularistic struggles, true politics requires universalizing the excluded’s grievances (Žižek, pp. 1006–1007).
  • The task for the left is to reinvigorate this European tradition of politicization to challenge global capitalism and resist the depoliticizing tendencies of postpolitics.

Challenges of Repoliticization

  • The return to political antagonism is necessary to confront both right-wing fundamentalism and the global capitalist order. This requires breaking the cycle of neoliberal globalization and asserting universal justice (Žižek, p. 1009).
  • Žižek underscores the need for a new mode of repoliticization that interrogates global capitalism’s dominance, continuing the European tradition of universalism as a transformative force.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinitionExplanation/Example
Politics ProperThe emergence of universal equality through the demands of excluded groups (“part of no-part”) challenging hierarchy.Seen in events like the French Revolution, where marginalized groups claimed to represent society as a whole.
Part of No-PartGroups excluded or marginalized within the social hierarchy that claim universality.Example: The Greek demos, which represented universal interests despite being politically excluded.
Singulier UniverselA singular group that identifies with universal principles, disrupting social hierarchy.Example: French Third Estate declaring itself the nation during the French Revolution.
Arche-politicsAttempts to sustain a harmonious, closed social order by avoiding political conflict.Seen in traditional communitarian societies that suppress dissent to maintain stability.
ParapoliticsReducing politics to regulated competition within existing frameworks.Example: Electoral politics framed as a contest of interests under fixed democratic rules.
MetapoliticsThe view that political struggles are merely expressions of underlying economic contradictions.Example: Marxist interpretation of class struggle as driven by economic processes.
UltrapoliticsRadicalizing political conflict into warfare or absolute antagonism.Example: Carl Schmitt’s notion of politics as a friend-enemy distinction.
PostpoliticsThe foreclosure of political antagonism, replaced by technocratic management and consensus-building.Example: Global governance through negotiations without addressing structural inequalities.
DepoliticizationEfforts to suppress or neutralize political antagonism through consensus or technocracy.Example: Viewing demands for justice as technical issues to be managed, not conflicts to be resolved.
IgalibertéBalibar’s concept combining equality (égalité) and liberty (liberté) as the foundation of politics proper.Politics proper emerges when the excluded claim equality and liberty as universal rights.
Globalization vs. UniversalismGlobalization refers to capitalist integration; universalism refers to political struggles that assert universal equality.Example: Global trade’s expansion vs. movements for workers’ rights worldwide.
Symbolic EfficiencyThe capacity of symbolic fictions (e.g., human rights) to influence and reorganize socio-political relations.Example: The French Revolution’s demand for “liberty, equality, fraternity” transforming political structures.
Id-evilViolence driven by irrational resentment, not ideological or utilitarian motivations.Example: Xenophobic attacks by skinheads as expressions of disturbed pleasure dynamics.
Appearance vs. SimulacrumAppearance is symbolic and meaningful; simulacrum is an indistinguishable copy of reality.Example: Democratic rights (appearance) inspiring action vs. superficial performative politics (simulacrum).
Foreclosure of the PoliticalComplete suppression of political antagonism, leading to irrational, excessive returns of the repressed.Example: Ethnic violence arising in depoliticized societies.
MulticulturalismLiberal acceptance of diverse identities without addressing structural injustices.Example: Affirmative action that acknowledges difference but does not politicize systemic inequality.
The Knave and the FoolThe knave is a cynical realist; the fool is a utopian who exposes the lie of the existing order.The knave: Free-market advocate; the fool: Multiculturalist critic of the system.
Vanishing MediatorA transitional event or state that disrupts the old order but disappears in the establishment of the new.Example: Democratic protests in Eastern Europe, which dissolved into neoliberal regimes.
Truth-EventA transformative moment that universalizes a demand, challenging the existing order.Example: The declaration of universal rights during revolutions.
RessentimentResentment expressed by asserting victimhood and demanding compensation from the dominant order.Example: Postmodern identity politics seeking reparations for historical injustices.
Contribution of “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek to Literary Theory/Theories

Postmodernism and Deconstruction

  • Critique of Postmodern Multiculturalism
    Žižek critiques the depoliticizing tendencies of postmodern multiculturalism, which prioritizes identity recognition over structural change. This insight challenges literary theories that celebrate multiplicity without addressing underlying power dynamics. (Žižek, 1998, p. 1007)
  • Simulacrum vs. Symbolic Appearance
    Differentiating symbolic appearance (political fiction) from the simulacrum (surface without depth), Žižek illuminates postmodernism’s failure to sustain the political dimensions of meaning. This critique impacts readings of texts that deal with authenticity and representation. (Žižek, 1998, p. 996)

Marxist Literary Theory

  • Class Struggle as Political Universalism
    The essay asserts that class struggle transcends particularity to represent universal justice. This aligns with Marxist approaches that interpret literature as a site of class antagonism and universal emancipatory potential. (Žižek, 1998, p. 993)
  • Critique of Metapolitics
    Žižek’s critique of Marxist metapolitics—reducing political conflict to economic determinism—invites a reevaluation of literary texts that foreground the autonomy of political struggle. (Žižek, 1998, p. 994)

Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

  • Concept of Id-Evil
    The notion of “id-evil,” where irrational violence expresses libidinal disturbances, contributes to psychoanalytic readings of literature, especially in analyzing characters’ unconscious drives and societal projections. (Žižek, 1998, p. 999)
  • Political Symbolic and Sublimation
    Žižek’s exploration of symbolic appearance connects to Lacanian theories of sublimation, enriching interpretations of symbolic structures in narratives and their disruptions. (Žižek, 1998, p. 996)

Cultural Studies and Identity Politics

  • Critique of Identity Politics
    Žižek argues that postmodern identity politics, focused on particularities, undermines universal struggles for justice. This critique offers a framework for analyzing cultural texts that prioritize identity over solidarity. (Žižek, 1998, p. 1007)
  • Ressentiment and Victimhood
    The essay’s critique of ressentiment—a politics of victimhood—provides a lens for examining narratives that center on grievance and reparation rather than transformative justice. (Žižek, 1998, p. 1007)

Political Theory and Literature

  • Concept of Politics Proper
    Žižek’s definition of politics proper as the assertion of universal equality by excluded groups applies to literary texts portraying marginalized voices claiming their space in dominant discourses. (Žižek, 1998, p. 989)
  • Foreclosure of the Political
    The idea that postpolitical societies suppress political antagonisms resonates with literary theories examining the absence or erasure of conflict in neoliberal cultural production. (Žižek, 1998, p. 998)

European Legacy in Literary Studies

  • Defense of Eurocentrism
    Žižek’s reappropriation of the European legacy as the birthplace of political universality encourages critical literary theory to reassess European narratives and their universalist claims in literature. (Žižek, 1998, p. 1008)
  • Universalism vs. Globalization in Texts
    The distinction between universalism (political struggle) and globalization (economic integration) shapes interpretations of literature that critique neoliberal globalization. (Žižek, 1998, p. 1009)
Examples of Critiques Through “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek
Literary WorkŽižek’s Theoretical LensExample of Critique
George Orwell’s 1984Foreclosure of the Political: Postpolitical societies suppress antagonisms.The Party in 1984 represents the total depoliticization of dissent, where all resistance is foreclosed and any opposition is repressed, turning subjects into docile citizens. (Žižek, 1998, p. 998)
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall ApartUniversalism vs. Identity Politics: Universal struggle vs. particular identities.Achebe’s portrayal of Igbo society reflects resistance to colonial globalization, but the focus on local identity risks being co-opted by postmodern narratives of victimhood. (Žižek, 1998, p. 1007)
Toni Morrison’s BelovedRessentiment and Victimhood: The cycle of grievance versus universal justice.Sethe’s traumatic past symbolizes a ressentiment-driven response to slavery; Žižek’s critique would explore how this cycle challenges or reinforces universal emancipation. (Žižek, 1998, p. 1007)
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great GatsbySimulacrum vs. Symbolic Appearance: Differentiating depth from superficiality.Gatsby’s obsession with Daisy represents the simulacrum—a mere surface projection of desire—while Žižek would argue for the lost symbolic efficiency of the American Dream. (Žižek, 1998, p. 996)
Criticism Against “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek
  • Reinforcement of Eurocentrism
    Žižek’s argument for a leftist appropriation of Eurocentrism has been critiqued as inadvertently reinforcing the very Eurocentric hierarchies he seeks to challenge. His valorization of European philosophical traditions risks marginalizing non-European modes of thought.
  • Neglect of Postcolonial Perspectives
    Critics argue that Žižek overlooks the contributions of postcolonial theorists, whose emphasis on the violence and exclusion inherent in Eurocentrism contradicts his portrayal of the European legacy as universally emancipatory.
  • Reduction of Identity Politics
    Žižek’s critique of identity politics as a depoliticizing force is seen by some as dismissive of the legitimate struggles of marginalized groups. Critics suggest that he unfairly positions identity-based movements as antithetical to universalist politics.
  • Ambiguity in Universalism
    While Žižek advocates for universalism, critics highlight a lack of clarity in how this universalism can be practically achieved without replicating existing power imbalances inherent in global structures.
  • Overemphasis on the Political
    His insistence on the primacy of the political as the site of universal struggle has been critiqued for neglecting cultural, social, and economic dimensions, which are equally vital for understanding modern power dynamics.
  • Limited Engagement with Multiculturalism
    Žižek’s harsh critique of liberal multiculturalism is considered overly cynical, dismissing it as purely a mechanism of global capitalism without acknowledging its potential for fostering mutual understanding and coexistence.
  • Romanticization of European Political Traditions
    By emphasizing ancient Greek democracy and other European political milestones, Žižek has been accused of romanticizing European history while downplaying its complicity in colonialism and systemic oppression.
Representative Quotations from “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“What is politics proper? It is a phenomenon that appeared for the first time in ancient Greece…”Highlights Žižek’s assertion that the concept of politics, rooted in universal equality, is a distinctively European legacy, emphasizing its historical emergence.
“Politics proper thus always involves a kind of short circuit between the universal and the particular…”Describes the tension in politics where marginalized groups (the “part of no-part”) claim to represent universal values, challenging established hierarchies.
“The basic aim of antidemocratic politics always and by definition is depoliticization…”Critiques antidemocratic politics for reducing politics to administrative order, thus suppressing the space for genuine democratic struggle and universality.
“Globalization is precisely the name for the emerging postpolitical logic…”Žižek critiques globalization as erasing political universality by replacing it with the economic logic of global capitalism.
“Postmodern identity politics… fits perfectly the depoliticized notion of society…”Criticizes identity politics for reinforcing particularism and avoiding the broader universal struggle against systemic injustices.
“The ultimate goal of true politics is thus its self-cancellation…”Reflects on Marxist metapolitics, where the aim is to transcend political conflict and achieve a rational, universal society.
“True universalists are not those who preach global tolerance…but those who engage in a passionate fight…”Argues that genuine universalism arises from active engagement in divisive political struggles, not from passive multicultural tolerance.
“We are entering a new medieval society in the guise of the new world order…”Uses a historical analogy to critique the global capitalist order as fostering a fragmented, non-universal social structure similar to medieval feudalism.
“Multiculturalist openness versus a new fundamentalism is thus a false dilemma…”Rejects the binary opposition of multiculturalism and fundamentalism, seeing both as outcomes of the depoliticized global capitalist order.
“The only way for universality to come into existence… is in the guise of its very opposite…”Posits that universal truths often emerge through antagonistic struggles that appear irrational or excessive within existing social frameworks.
Suggested Readings: “A Leftist Plea for “Eurocenterism” by Slavoj Žižek
  1. Žižek, Slavoj. “A leftist plea for” Eurocentrism”.” Critical Inquiry 24.4 (1998): 988-1009.
  2. Žižek, Slavoj. “A Leftist Plea for ‘Eurocentrism.'” Critical Inquiry, vol. 24, no. 4, 1998, pp. 988–1009. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344115. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  3. Žižek, Slavoj. “Melancholy and the Act.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 26, no. 4, 2000, pp. 657–81. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344326. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
  4. Ciftci, Mehmet. “Saint Augustine and the Theological Critique of Ideology.” New Blackfriars, vol. 99, no. 1079, 2018, pp. 20–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45095793. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.