Category: Theory Article Summaries

1. Contribution to Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

• Examines race through the lens of Lacanian psychoanalysis
  • Khan explores how race is a discursive construct shaped by the unconscious rather than a biological reality.
  • Race is an effect of discourse, as Lacan states, “[a race] is constituted according to the mode in which symbolic places are transmitted by the order of a discourse” (Khan, 148).
  • This insight expands psychoanalytic readings of racial identity beyond traditional Freudian notions of repression.
• Connects the concept of jouissance to racial hatred
  • Khan builds on Miller’s idea that racism is driven by an intolerance of the Other’s jouissance rather than mere visual difference.
  • “Racism calls into play a hatred which goes precisely toward what grounds the Other’s alterity, in other words its jouissance” (Khan, 157).
  • This provides a psychoanalytic explanation for racialized violence and exclusion in literature.
• Applies the concept of extimacy to racial identity
  • Extimacy (external intimacy) explains how racism reflects an internal rejection of aspects of the self projected onto the Other.
  • “The root of racism is the hatred of one’s own jouissance… it is also hatred of myself” (Khan, 159).
  • This contributes to psychoanalytic readings of literature by showing how race functions as a psychological structure in narratives.

2. Contribution to Postcolonial Literary Theory

• Analyzes how colonial discourse shapes subjectivity
  • Khan highlights how the master’s discourse, particularly in colonialism, alters the unconscious of colonized subjects.
  • “The unconscious that had been sold to them along with the laws of colonization” (Khan, 149).
  • This supports postcolonial critiques of Western literary canons and their racialized structures of power.
• Critiques the “melting pot” as a colonial fantasy
  • Lacan’s critique of assimilationist ideologies aligns with postcolonial theorists like Homi Bhabha’s concept of hybridity.
  • “Leaving this Other to his own mode of jouissance, that would only be possible by not imposing our own on him” (Khan, 156).
  • This challenges narratives of integration in colonial and diasporic literature.
• Interrogates the colonial legacy of scientific racism in literature
  • The text examines how scientific discourse historically justified racial hierarchies, shaping literary representation.
  • “The human sciences take both madmen and racialized bodies as an object of segregative reason” (Khan, 149).
  • This contributes to postcolonial critiques of literary representations of race in Western texts.

3. Contribution to Critical Race Theory in Literary Studies

• Frames racism as a structural and unconscious phenomenon
  • Critical Race Theory (CRT) argues that racism is embedded in systems rather than individual prejudice.
  • Khan extends this by showing that racism is structured through the master’s discourse and the symbolic order (Khan, 150).
  • This helps deconstruct racial ideologies in literature by focusing on underlying linguistic and psychoanalytic structures.
• Challenges humanist universalism in literary representation
  • Khan critiques the universalizing claims of science and capitalism, which reinforce segregation rather than eliminating it.
  • “The universal mode—which is the mode under which science elaborates the real—seems to have no limit, when in fact it does” (Khan, 160).
  • This insight contributes to CRT’s critique of universalism in literary theory, showing how “colorblind” narratives still reinforce racial divisions.
• Expands CRT’s understanding of racial subjectivity through Lacanian theory
  • CRT often focuses on material and legal structures; Khan adds a psychoanalytic dimension, showing how racial difference is internalized at the unconscious level.
  • “The hatred of the jouissance of the Other is the structuring logic of racism” (Khan, 157).
  • This enriches literary analyses of racial identity and trauma.

4. Contribution to Structuralism and Poststructuralism in Literary Theory

• Race as a signifier within the symbolic order
  • Khan applies Lacan’s structuralist approach by arguing that race is a signifier produced within discourse, not a biological reality.
  • “Race is constituted according to the mode in which symbolic places are transmitted by the order of a discourse” (Khan, 148).
  • This aligns with poststructuralist critiques of essentialism in literary theory.
• Challenges essentialist representations of race in literature
  • By framing race as a discursive effect, Khan supports Derrida’s deconstruction of racial binaries.
  • This undermines fixed racial categories in literary analysis, promoting an understanding of identity as fluid and constructed.
• Questions the stability of racial identity in literary texts
  • Khan’s discussion of jouissance and extimacy suggests that racial identity is inherently unstable.
  • This aligns with poststructuralist readings of identity as fractured and shifting.

1. Implicit Racism in Defenses of Sexism

• The article argues that many justifications for sexism are implicitly racist because they rely on principles that could also be used to justify racial discrimination (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 91).
• The authors examine three common defenses of sexist practices:
  • The Conservative Defense
  • The Pseudo-Liberal Defense
  • The Libertarian Defense

2. The Conservative Defense: Tradition as Justification for Discrimination

• This argument claims that established prejudices should be preserved in law and policy.
• J.R. Lucas argues that sexist employment policies are justified because people “recognise that a person’s sex can reasonably be regarded as relevant to his or her suitability for particular posts” (Lucas, 1973, pp. 166-168, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 92).
• The authors point out that this reasoning could also justify racial discrimination, as some people historically saw “boss-servant roles in racial terms” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

3. The Pseudo-Liberal Defense: Using Statistical Differences to Justify Discrimination

• Some philosophers argue that equal opportunity should depend on further investigation into gender differences.
• W.T. Blackstone suggests that gender equality “would be correct only if all relevant facts, characteristics, or circumstances… were independent of gender” (Blackstone, 1975, p. 247, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).
• J.R. Lucas extends this reasoning by saying that “the more integrally and the more invariably a difference is connected with a person’s sex, the more we are entitled to insist that the mere fact of being male or female can constitute a conclusive reason against being allowed to do something” (Lucas, 1973, p. 167, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).
• Ketchum and Pierce argue that this logic can be applied to race, justifying discriminatory hiring practices if statistical differences exist between racial groups, leading to racial bias in employment (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).

4. The Libertarian Defense: Defending Discrimination as a Matter of Choice

• W.E. Cooper defends sexist institutions by appealing to individual freedom, arguing that people should be free to choose traditional gender roles (Cooper, 1975, p. 256, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).
• The authors criticize this argument by showing that the same logic could be used to justify racial oppression, arguing that if Black individuals “choose” lower-status positions, this could be seen as legitimizing racial discrimination (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).
• They note that no one argues for the right of Black people to be treated as slaves, yet Cooper uses similar reasoning to defend sexism (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

5. Critique of These Defenses

• The authors argue that these defenses of sexism fail to recognize how discrimination is institutional and systemic, rather than a matter of personal choice.
• They point out that all three defenses imply that societal change should only happen if sexist or racist attitudes disappear naturally, rather than being challenged through policy and law (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 96).

6. Conclusion: Challenging Implicit Bias in Justifications of Inequality

• The authors conclude that justifications for sexism often rely on principles that could be applied to racism, exposing the hidden racial biases in these philosophical defenses (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 96).
• They argue for a more critical approach to discrimination, one that does not rely on cultural traditions, statistical differences, or individual choices as justifications for inequality (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 97).

Key Takeaways

• Sexist defenses often rest on arguments that could justify racial discrimination.
• Conservative, pseudo-liberal, and libertarian defenses of sexism reinforce implicit racism.
• Discrimination should be challenged systematically, not passively accepted as tradition or personal preference.

1. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Revealing the Overlap Between Sexism and Racism:
  • The article argues that philosophical justifications for sexism often rely on principles that could also justify racism, thus exposing the implicit racism within arguments defending gender inequality.
  • “Several articles which defend sexist practices are implicitly racist… principles that apply to the areas where sexism and racism are similar” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 91).
• Exposing Institutional Racism Through Gender Analysis:
  • The study shows how institutional discrimination is defended using logic that maintains both racial and gender hierarchies.
  • “A racist who thinks of servility and deference as essential characteristics of negritude will have as much difficulty taking orders from a Black boss as will a sexist who thinks of a woman boss as inappropriate” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

2. Feminist Theory

• Intersectionality of Gender and Race:
  • The article precedes and informs later feminist theories of intersectionality, showing how sexist oppression often mirrors racial oppression.
  • “The conservative argument policies directed against racism or sexism can be justified only if the society is not racist or sexist” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).
• Critique of Gender-Based Essentialism:
  • Challenges the pseudo-liberal argument that women’s roles should be determined by biology or statistical differences, a concept later addressed by feminist theorists like Judith Butler.
  • “The more integrally and the more invariably a difference is connected with a person’s sex, the more we are entitled to insist that the mere fact of being male or female can constitute a conclusive reason against being allowed to do something” (Lucas, 1973, cited in Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

3. Postcolonial Theory

• Colonial Logic in Justifications of Oppression:
  • The article highlights how the same arguments used to justify sexism were used historically to uphold colonialism and racial hierarchy.
  • “If a widespread association between the role of priest or the role of soldier and maleness justifies excluding women from professions related to those roles, similar associations would justify excluding Blacks” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 92).
• Cultural Norms as Justifications for Discrimination:
  • The conservative defense of discrimination as “tradition” parallels colonial arguments for maintaining racial hierarchies in occupied territories.
  • “If attitudes and habits of discrimination are sufficiently integral to the culture, discriminatory policies and laws are justified” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 92).

4. Social Constructivism

• Critique of Biological Determinism:
  • The authors challenge the idea that social roles are dictated by biological sex or race, instead arguing that they are social constructs reinforced by power structures.
  • “Neither Blackstone nor Lucas explains why he thinks that hiring people on the basis of sex—and, within the favored sex, on qualifications—would be so much easier and more beneficial than hiring on the basis of individual qualifications” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).
• Discrimination as a Socially Maintained System:
  • The article supports later social constructivist theories by demonstrating that discrimination persists not due to natural differences but due to constructed social norms.
  • “One person cannot be discriminated against as a woman without there being some practice or policy of discrimination which would affect other women who might not so choose” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

5. Legal and Political Philosophy

• Critique of Libertarian Defenses of Discrimination:
  • The authors challenge libertarian arguments that discrimination should be a matter of free choice, pointing out that discrimination is systemic and affects all individuals within an oppressed group.
  • “Such institutions regulate and affect people other than those who choose them” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).
• Opposing the “Consent” Argument for Inequality:
  • They argue that just because individuals “choose” to accept lower status does not mean the discrimination is justifiable—a key critique of laissez-faire approaches to social justice.
  • “One could produce a racially just society by convincing Blacks that they are better off as slaves, servants, and manual laborers” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

6. Moral and Ethical Philosophy

• Moral Critique of Discrimination Justifications:
  • The article challenges the idea that discrimination is morally acceptable if it is statistically or culturally justified.
  • “Lucas argues for institutionalizing sexist discrimination in such cases on the analogy of the speed limit” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 94).
• Critique of Relativism in Discrimination:
  • The authors expose the danger of moral relativism in justifications of racism and sexism, showing how similar reasoning has historically been used to justify slavery and segregation.
  • “No articles in the literature champion the rights of Blacks to be treated as inferior (or to be slaves if they want to be) in order to safeguard their freedom, and Cooper offers no reason for granting such rights to sexists while not granting them to racists” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 95).

7. Influence on Intersectionality Studies

• Early Formulation of Intersectionality Concepts:
  • The article precedes and contributes to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s later work on intersectionality, which examines how multiple forms of discrimination overlap.
  • “Policies directed against racism or sexism can be justified only if the society is not racist or sexist” (Ketchum & Pierce, 1976, p. 93).

Conclusion: Broader Impact on Literary and Social Theory

• Implicit Racism bridges multiple literary, social, and philosophical disciplines, offering an early critique of implicit bias, intersectionality, and institutional discrimination.
• The study challenges sexist and racist justifications by exposing their shared logic, laying groundwork for later scholarship in critical race theory, feminist theory, and postcolonial studies.
• It remains an important work in understanding how social injustices are justified through flawed philosophical reasoning, making it a foundational text in intersectional and social justice studies.

7. Lack of Cross-Cultural Analysis

• The article focuses on Western philosophical debates without considering how sexism and racism are justified differently across cultures.
• Non-Western perspectives on discrimination may not align with the conservative, pseudo-liberal, and libertarian defenses described in the paper.

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Colonial Travel Writing as an Ideological Tool: Howell demonstrates how Victorian travel narratives used climate to define racial hierarchies and justify imperial expansion.
  • “The politicised, racialised discourse of ‘climatism’… afforded writers of fictional and non-fictional travel narratives unique frameworks within which to explore national and imperial identity” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 5).
• Resistance to Colonial Discourses: The study highlights how writers like James Africanus Horton and Mary Seacole subverted colonial rhetoric by using climatic and disease discourse to challenge European superiority.
  • “Horton used the notion of climatic danger to criticise western colonial arrogance, champion native constitution, and create ‘space for a pocket of educated West African authorities’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 97).

2. Ecocriticism and Environmental Humanities

• Climatism as an Imperial Justification and Environmental Determinism: Howell’s study examines how colonial travel narratives framed non-European spaces as inherently diseased and inhospitable to Europeans, reinforcing environmental determinism.
  • “Despite the increasing acceptance of germ theory and a plethora of discoveries in the fields of bacteriology and parasitology in this time period, environmental pathologies continued to persist in the imperial imagination” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 14).
• The Role of Miasma in Environmental Rhetoric: The book discusses how miasma was used to describe colonial spaces as places of danger and degeneration, reinforcing imperialist narratives.
  • “She makes a case, for example, for the utility of miasma as a ‘particularly rhetorically flexible element of climate’, which enabled writers to reimagine landscapes as irredeemable spaces of pathology, or as spaces of untold potential, in need of palliative imperialism” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 14).

3. Medical Humanities and Disease Narratives

• Medical Geography and Imperial Biopolitics: Howell reveals how climate was central to colonial medical discourse, shaping perceptions of racial immunity and vulnerability.
  • “Burton’s ability to ‘sense’ an unhealthy area is used not only as a tool to reinforce his rhetorical authority, but as a framework for maintaining racial and moral hierarchies in a kind of ‘medical moral geography’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 67).
• Hybrid Physiology and Racial Medicine: The study highlights how figures like Mary Seacole used medical narratives to challenge colonial racial theories by emphasizing mixed-race immunity to disease.
  • “By contrasting her ‘strong’ hybrid physiology with the ‘weak’ constitutions of white British subjects, Seacole, ‘tapped into [the] very germane and contentious topic[s]’ of polygenism and racial fitness” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 32).

4. Biopolitics and Foucault’s Theory of Power

• The Body as a Site of Colonial Control: Howell’s analysis demonstrates how colonial authorities used environmental medicine to regulate bodies and populations in the empire.
  • “The resulting pro-imperial narratives united racial anthropology with geography and colonial medicine to produce intensely political frameworks which ‘inscribe[d] Africans within geographical boundaries’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 57).
• Racialized Disease and Surveillance: Travel narratives framed non-European bodies as inherently diseased, reinforcing colonial biopower over indigenous populations.
  • “The aesthetic and rhetorical choices that the authors make in narrating their own tropical experiences represent ‘moments when […] the gaze of the coloniser and the gaze of the medical geographer’ collide” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 20).

5. Gender and Postcolonial Feminism

• Mary Seacole and the Reframing of Colonial Womanhood: The study highlights how Seacole subverted gendered imperial ideologies by positioning herself as a competent healer rather than a passive colonial subject.
  • “Seacole positioned herself, and others like her, as ‘surrogate mothers’, and exploited white British subjects’ fear of disease in order to frame mixed-race nurses as indispensable” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 34).
• Mary Kingsley’s Resistance to Colonial Feminine Norms: Howell examines how Kingsley manipulated gendered narratives to gain authority in colonial travel writing while maintaining a racially separatist stance.
  • “She garnered narrative authority from this somatic robustness, which she framed as a ‘sympathy’ with local environments, and was able, at the same time, to use climate to argue against widespread European settlement” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 124).

6. Psychological Modernism and Literary Impressionism

• Joseph Conrad and the Psychological Symbolism of Climate: Howell explores how Conrad’s use of mist and environmental symbolism represents the psychological and moral deterioration of European colonialists.
  • “Conrad’s ‘impressionism’ and use of symbolic mist, she argues, function as motifs, which focus attention on the process of becoming ill and its mental toll” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 141).
• Climate as a Metaphor for Colonial Anxiety: The study connects Conrad’s atmospheric descriptions to broader existential doubts about imperialism.
  • “This psychologised understanding of climatic illness ultimately ‘thr[e]w the colonial project’s basic feasibility into doubt’” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 141).

Conclusion: The Broader Impact on Literary Theory

• Howell’s study bridges multiple fields, including postcolonial studies, ecocriticism, medical humanities, biopolitics, feminist theory, and modernist literary analysis.
• By examining climate as a multifaceted literary and ideological tool, the book sheds light on how environmental discourse functioned in the imperial imagination.
• Howell’s interdisciplinary approach makes Exploring Victorian Travel Literature a valuable resource for scholars studying colonial literature, travel writing, and the intersection of race, disease, and environment in literary history.

1. Over-Reliance on Climatism as an Analytical Framework

• The study heavily focuses on climatism as a primary interpretative lens, potentially overshadowing other significant factors, such as political, economic, and technological influences on colonial travel writing.
• Howell’s argument that climate was used in “multivalent and sometimes conflicting ways” (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 5) is strong, but it may overstate the dominance of climate over other imperial narratives, such as direct racial violence, economic exploitation, and administrative policies.

2. Limited Engagement with Indigenous Perspectives

• While the study acknowledges African authors like James Africanus Horton, it still prioritizes European colonial writers as the central voices, reinforcing a Eurocentric focus.
• There is less direct engagement with indigenous narratives, which could provide a more nuanced counterpoint to the colonial discourse on climate, disease, and race.

3. Narrow Focus on Victorian Travel Writing

• The study limits itself to the 1857–1899 period, which, while historically significant, may miss broader literary and scientific shifts in climate and disease discourse that occurred in the 18th and early 20th centuries.
• Expanding the analysis to later colonial or postcolonial texts could provide a more comprehensive perspective on how these ideas evolved.

4. Generalization of Literary Intentions

• Some literary authors’ intentions may be oversimplified, particularly when classifying them as either pro- or anti-colonial.
• Mary Kingsley, for example, is described as holding an “anti-colonial but pro-imperial” stance (Taylor-Brown, 2016, p. 118), but this label may fail to capture the complexity of her personal and ideological positions.

5. Potential Overstatement of Medical Moral Geography

• The argument that Burton and other writers constructed racial and moral hierarchies through medical geography is insightful, but it risks attributing too much intentionality to their descriptions of disease and climate.
• Some Victorian travel writers, rather than actively reinforcing imperial rule, may have simply reflected contemporary scientific beliefs about disease and environment rather than strategically shaping colonial ideology.

6. Absence of Contemporary Scientific Counterpoints

• The study does not engage deeply with contemporary medical or scientific critiques of Victorian climatism.
• Including scientific perspectives from historians of medicine might provide a more balanced evaluation of how climatism functioned alongside emerging germ theory.

7. Lack of Comparative Analysis with Non-British Colonial Texts

• The study focuses exclusively on British imperial narratives, missing a comparative perspective with French, Portuguese, or Dutch colonial travel literature, which could provide additional insights into how climatism functioned across different empires.
• A broader cross-colonial analysis could test whether the same climate-race-disease narratives were used beyond British imperial writing.

1. Casual Racism as a Teaching Challenge

• Betensky describes how teachers of Victorian literature frequently encounter racist references in texts. Initially, these references are discussed, but over time, they become normalized and unnoticed:

“We learn, like the Victorians, to take it for granted.” (Betensky, p. 723)

• The essay explores how racism appears incidentally in many works, not just those thematically centered on race and empire.

2. The Pervasiveness of Casual Racism

• Casual racism is deeply embedded in Victorian literature, appearing in everyday descriptions and offhand comments rather than forming a major thematic concern.
• For instance, in East Lynne (1861), a character uses the phrase “with a Jew’s eye,” a casually anti-Semitic remark that is not central to the novel:

“The slur doesn’t stand out as especially egregious to anyone familiar with Victorian culture.” (p. 724)

• Casual racism in these texts is offensive but often overlooked, unlike the explicit anti-Semitism in Oliver Twist (1839), where Fagin’s Jewish identity is central to the novel’s depiction of criminality.

3. Victorian Racism as a Cultural Norm

• Victorian literature reflects the widespread racism of the time, much of which was unconscious or unexamined. This raises the question of how contemporary scholars and students should engage with it.
• Scholars have traditionally focused on how imperialism is central to Victorian literature, but casual racism, which appears in texts that are not explicitly about race, has been largely ignored.
• Betensky questions:

“How do we contend with the pervasive instances of Victorian racism that do not dominate our readings of the texts in which they appear?” (p. 725)

4. The “Speaker’s Benefit” and the Problem of Historical Distance

• The essay draws on Michel Foucault’s concept of the “speaker’s benefit,” wherein modern readers take pride in acknowledging the racism of the past to feel morally superior.
• This creates a false sense of progress, implying that contemporary society has evolved beyond racism:

“Calling the Victorians repressed is thus not a neutral nor merely an erroneous act… it represents an important investment on the part of those who propagate it.” (p. 732)

• By contextualizing Victorian racism without acknowledging ongoing racism today, scholars risk reinforcing the illusion that contemporary society has fully transcended racial prejudices.

5. Implications for Teaching and Antiracist Pedagogy

• Betensky discusses how casual racism should be addressed in the classroom.
• She critiques the tendency of educators to note racism in texts but then instruct students to “bracket” their reactions in favor of “sophisticated reading.”
• She acknowledges her own past failures:

“I had always wanted students to recognize racism when they saw it but had been asking them, at the same time, to take that recognition and bracket it.” (p. 730)

• She argues for a pedagogical approach that connects Victorian racism to contemporary systemic racism.

6. Case Study: “Infestation” in The Moonstone

• Betensky highlights an example from Wilkie Collins’s The Moonstone (1868), where an Indian character is described as part of a group that “infests the streets.”
• She draws a comparison between this and modern political rhetoric, such as Donald Trump’s 2018 tweet about immigrants “infesting” the country.
• The use of dehumanizing language persists, illustrating the continuity of casual racism from the Victorian era to the present.

7. The Risk of Ignoring Racism in Literature

• Ignoring casual racism in Victorian literature has two key dangers:
  1. It alienates students of color, forcing them to endure repeated exposure to racist content without discussion.
  2. It trains all students to accept systemic racism as normal or irrelevant.
• One of Betensky’s students reflects on how racism should be addressed upfront in classroom discussions:

“Every instance of racism needs to be taken seriously. If, as educators, we decide not to discuss the racism within these texts because of our own discomfort… then we shouldn’t be teaching them at all.” (p. 742)

8. Conclusion: Toward Strategic Presentism

• Betensky advocates for a “strategic presentism” approach, which balances historical context with contemporary relevance.
• Scholars should not simply historicize Victorian racism but use it to help students understand ongoing racial injustices.
• The study of Victorian literature should challenge students to recognize that racism is not just a thing of the past:

“Noticing, thinking, and talking about casual racism in Victorian texts is not even radical. It’s really the least we can do.” (p. 741)

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Expands the scope of postcolonial critique beyond empire-focused texts

• Postcolonial literary criticism often examines the central role of empire and colonialism in shaping literature. Betensky extends this focus by highlighting casual racism in texts that are not primarily about empire.
• Key Quote: “As opposed to texts with full-on explorations of race or nation, the ones that interest me here are the texts that are not typically read in this connection.” (p. 723)
• This aligns with Edward Said’s (Culture and Imperialism) argument that imperialism shapes even those texts where it is not explicitly foregrounded.
• Challenges the notion that racism must be explicit to be significant

• Postcolonial critics like Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak have argued that racism is embedded in language and culture. Betensky builds on this by showing how even minor, throwaway references reinforce racial hierarchies.
• Key Quote: “The throwaway reference to supposed Jewish greed is not an intrinsic element of the novel, whereas in Oliver Twist, by way of comparison, the depiction of Fagin is explicitly, extensively, and thematically anti-Semitic.” (p. 724)

2. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Foregrounds the concept of ‘casual racism’ as a systemic issue rather than an individual failing

• Betensky aligns with CRT’s premise that racism is structural and systemic, rather than a collection of individual prejudices.
• Key Quote: “Casual racism is no less structural or systemic than the racism that demands and has undergone in-depth analysis.” (p. 726)
• This complements Cheryl Harris’s (Whiteness as Property) argument that whiteness operates as an invisible system of privilege.
• Calls for a shift in literary pedagogy to address embedded racism

• Betensky critiques the way Victorian literature is often taught in a way that dissociates contemporary readers from its racism. She urges a pedagogical approach that connects historical racism with modern systemic racism.
• Key Quote: “By insisting on the historical specificity of Victorian racism… I had been instructing students to think, falsely, that we stood in an evolved relationship not only to Victorian racism but to racism, period.” (p. 730)

3. Historicism and Presentism (Strategic Presentism)

• Reframes the role of historical context in analyzing racism

• Betensky critiques traditional historicism, which aims to understand texts purely in their own time, arguing that this approach can lead to the erasure of racism’s ongoing impact.
• Key Quote: “If we portray the Victorians as if they were different from us in their ignorance and in the throwaway casualness of their racism… we are effectively portraying our own culture as one that has, to some unexamined degree, transcended racism.” (p. 733)
• This aligns with Fredric Jameson’s (The Political Unconscious) argument that literature must be interpreted through both its historical conditions and its ongoing ideological effects.
• Supports ‘Strategic Presentism’ as a method for engaging with Victorian racism

• Betensky builds on the V21 Collective’s idea of “strategic presentism,” which calls for actively connecting past texts to present-day issues rather than treating them as historically distant.
• Key Quote: “Strategic presentism offers a path toward contemporary relevance that does not cast aside historical specificity so much as it reframes our relationship to it.” (p. 738)

4. Reader-Response Theory

• Explores how different readers experience casual racism in texts

• Betensky argues that whiteness as the default position in literary studies affects how racism is perceived in Victorian texts. Readers of color are more likely to notice and be affected by casual racism than white readers.
• Key Quote: “For the students who are the most sensitive to every nuance of racism in contemporary discourse, ignoring casual racism in the texts we teach constitutes a betrayal.” (p. 735)
• This aligns with Stanley Fish’s idea that interpretation is shaped by the reader’s background and identity.
• Critiques the ‘sophisticated reader’ model in academia

• Betensky examines how students are trained to bracket their moral reactions to racism in Victorian literature in the name of scholarly detachment.
• Key Quote: “I had been asking them, at the same time, to take that recognition and bracket it.” (p. 730)
• This echoes Louise Rosenblatt’s (The Reader, the Text, the Poem) view that emotions and ethics are central to literary interpretation.

5. Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

• Applies Foucault’s concept of ‘The Speaker’s Benefit’ to discussions of Victorian racism

• Betensky adapts Michel Foucault’s argument (from The History of Sexuality) that modern speakers construct their own self-image by positioning themselves as more enlightened than the past.
• Key Quote: “Disavowing Victorian repression has an analogue in disavowing Victorian racism. When we tell our students that Victorian culture was deeply racist… we reap a collective speaker’s benefit.” (p. 732)
• Questions how power operates in literary studies through discourse

• Betensky critiques the “veil of ignorance” that scholars sometimes impose by separating Victorian racism from contemporary issues.
• Key Quote: “Encountering purged words in Victorian texts without noting these continuities allows the triumphalism of the speaker’s benefit to go unchallenged.” (p. 734)
• This aligns with Foucault’s (Discipline and Punish) argument that discourse is a means of social control.

6. Pedagogy and Antiracist Education

• Advocates for pedagogical methods that highlight casual racism in Victorian texts

• Betensky argues that Victorian literature should be taught in a way that makes students critically aware of both past and present racism.
• Key Quote: “How do we contend with the pervasive instances of Victorian racism that do not dominate our readings of the texts in which they appear? How, in other words, do we remark the unremarkable?” (p. 724)
• Emphasizes the importance of pre-reading activities

• One of Betensky’s students suggests that teachers should “frontload” discussions of racism before students read the text, so they are better prepared to notice it.
• Key Quote: “A unit on Wuthering Heights should include… what it meant at that time to call a character ‘gipsy,’ and how this was a construction of race and identity.” (p. 742)

Conclusion: A Multidisciplinary Contribution

• Betensky’s work bridges literary studies, postcolonial critique, critical race theory, and pedagogy, offering a new framework for understanding casual racism in literature.
• By challenging historical contextualization as an excuse for past racism, she redefines the relationship between Victorian texts and contemporary racial discourse.
• Her work contributes to ongoing debates in academia about race, privilege, and the role of literature in shaping societal norms.

1. Overemphasis on “Casual” Racism at the Expense of Structural Racism

• Some critics argue that Betensky focuses too much on incidental racist remarks rather than the deeper systemic and institutional racism that shaped Victorian literature.
• By emphasizing casual racism, the analysis may obscure the broader, more deliberate racial ideologies at play in empire-building and colonial discourse.

2. Risk of Overgeneralization About “The Victorians”

• Betensky acknowledges the problem of lumping all Victorians together but still frequently refers to “the Victorians” as a collective.
• This broad characterization risks flattening the diversity of opinions on race within Victorian society, including abolitionist and anti-imperialist perspectives.

3. Presentism and Moral Judgment

• Some scholars argue that Betensky’s approach leans towards presentism, applying contemporary racial frameworks to historical texts without fully accounting for their historical contexts.
• The essay sometimes implies that Victorian racism should be analyzed through modern moral judgments, which could lead to anachronistic readings.

4. Lack of Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives

• While Betensky critiques how Victorian texts treat racial others, she does not sufficiently incorporate perspectives from scholars of color or postcolonial theorists outside the Western academic tradition.
• This could limit the scope of the analysis, particularly when discussing how racialized subjects resisted or reinterpreted racist narratives.

5. Overemphasis on Pedagogy Over Literary Analysis

• The essay is heavily focused on how educators handle racist elements in Victorian literature rather than providing a detailed literary theoretical framework.
• Some critics may argue that it lacks a rigorous engagement with existing literary theories on race and empire (e.g., postcolonialism, critical race theory).

6. Ambiguity in Defining “Casual Racism”

• The concept of “casual racism” is somewhat nebulous in the essay—sometimes referring to incidental slurs, sometimes to broader ideological undercurrents.
• A clearer theoretical definition of how casual racism differs from structural racism or unconscious bias could strengthen the argument.

7. Limited Consideration of Counterexamples

• The essay focuses on examples where casual racism is ignored or normalized but does not sufficiently engage with Victorian texts or figures who actively challenged racist ideas.
• Works by authors such as Mary Seacole or Frederick Douglass, who responded directly to Victorian racism, are absent from the discussion.

8. Implications for Modern Readership

• Betensky suggests that recognizing casual racism in Victorian texts should lead to deeper discussions on modern racism, but critics argue she does not fully explore how this would work in contemporary literary studies.
• The essay could provide more concrete strategies for how contemporary readers and scholars should navigate these texts beyond merely acknowledging their racist elements.

Overall Summary of Criticism

While Casual Racism in Victorian Literature offers an important lens for analyzing racial discourse in Victorian novels, it has been critiqued for:

• Potentially overshadowing systemic racism with a focus on incidental slurs.
• Overgeneralizing Victorian attitudes toward race.
• Leaning into presentism.
• Lacking engagement with global perspectives.
• Prioritizing pedagogy over literary theory.

1. The Intertextual Connection Between Marx and Balzac

• Marx and Engels highly valued Balzac’s depiction of French society, with Engels stating that Comédie humaine taught him more than historians and economists of the time (Petrey, 1988, p. 448).
• Marx intended to write a study of Balzac, highlighting the deep connection between literature and socio-political analysis (p. 448).
• Petrey explores how Balzac’s Colonel Chabert and Marx’s The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte share a common vision of history and representation.

2. Challenging Economism: The Limits of Base-Superstructure Theory

• Traditional Marxist thought emphasizes economic determinism, where material conditions dictate ideological and political structures.
• Petrey argues that both Balzac and Marx reject a simplistic economic model, instead depicting ideology as an independent material force (p. 449).
• Both authors reveal that social reality is not merely a reflection of economic forces but is shaped by representation and ideology.

3. The Weight of Ideology: History as a Nightmare

• Both Balzac and Marx describe ideology as an oppressive weight on individuals and societies.
• In Colonel Chabert, Chabert experiences the weight of social and legal institutions pressing down on him “like a nightmare” (p. 450).
• Marx echoes this in The Eighteenth Brumaire, writing that “the tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living” (p. 450).
• This shared imagery suggests that history does not progress linearly but instead haunts the present, shaping and distorting political action.

4. Crisis of Representation: Identity and Politics in Flux

• In Colonel Chabert, Chabert’s physical existence is undeniable, but because society has declared him dead, his identity is erased (p. 452).
• Similarly, in The Eighteenth Brumaire, the class struggle exists but fails to manifest politically, leading to a political void (p. 457).
• Both texts highlight the failure of representation: economic and social realities do not always translate into political recognition.

5. The Rupture Between Sign and Reality

• Petrey examines how Marx and Balzac dismantle the idea that words and symbols reliably reflect reality.
• Marx describes Napoleon III’s supporters with a chaotic list of labels: “swindlers, mountebanks, pickpockets, tricksters” (p. 451), showing that political legitimacy is constructed rather than inherent.
• Similarly, in Colonel Chabert, Chabert’s name no longer signifies a living person, underscoring the fragility of identity in a world dictated by social conventions (p. 452).

6. The Paradox of Class Identity: When is a Class Not a Class?

• Marx asserts that the French peasantry in The Eighteenth Brumaire is both a class and not a class (p. 459).
• Lacking political representation, the peasants “must be represented” by Napoleon III, who claims to embody their interests even though he does not serve them (p. 459).
• This parallels Chabert’s dilemma—he exists, but society refuses to recognize him, mirroring the struggle of the dispossessed (p. 460).

7. Ideology as a Material Force: Social Reality is Constructed

• Petrey draws on Althusser’s theory that ideology interpellates individuals as subjects, meaning people do not exist outside of ideological structures (p. 465).
• In Colonel Chabert, Chabert is legally dead because ideology dictates it—even though he is alive, he is denied legal and social recognition.
• Similarly, in The Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx shows that ideology shapes political outcomes, as Napoleon III gains power by exploiting historical nostalgia (p. 464).

8. Political Theatricality: Power as Performance

• Marx describes Napoleon III’s rule as a theatrical performance rather than a genuine political movement (p. 467).
• His legitimacy is based not on economic or political reality but on his ability to manipulate signs, symbols, and historical myths (p. 467).
• Petrey links this to J. L. Austin’s concept of performative speech, where language does not merely describe reality but creates it (p. 464).
• This is mirrored in Colonel Chabert, where Chabert’s identity ceases to exist because legal and social discourse has erased him.

9. The Dialectic of Realism and Ideology

• Petrey argues that Balzac and Marx reject the idea that realism simply depicts material conditions.
• Instead, they show that social reality is constructed through ideology and discourse.
• Marx famously wrote that “the social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future” (p. 468).
• This suggests that both revolutionary movements and reactionary regimes are constructed through historical narratives rather than purely economic conditions.

10. Literature and History as Interwoven Forms of Representation

• Petrey concludes that Balzac and Marx both challenge simplistic notions of reality and representation.
• Colonel Chabert and The Eighteenth Brumaire illustrate that ideology does not merely distort reality—it creates it (p. 468).
• Recognition and legitimacy are not inherent but socially constructed, determining who is acknowledged as a subject or class.
• Both texts demonstrate that history is not simply determined by economic forces but is actively shaped by ideological struggles and representations.

1. Marxist Literary Theory

• Challenges Economism:
  • Petrey critiques the idea that economic structures alone determine social and ideological forms, arguing that ideology has its own material force. “Colonel Chabert and The Eighteenth Brumaire undermine the armature of economism, the hierarchical superiority of material reality over ideological concepts” (p. 449).
• Ideology as Material Force:
  • Instead of viewing ideology as a mere reflection of economic conditions, Petrey shows that both Balzac and Marx depict ideology as actively shaping reality. “Because both texts represent ideology as a material reality in its own right, they make every hierarchy based on the opposition between matter and ideology untenable” (p. 450).
• Reevaluates Class Struggle:
  • The Eighteenth Brumaire suggests that class struggle is not always politically visible, undermining the traditional Marxist notion that economic conditions alone drive historical change. “The proletariat may be the subject-object of history, but the history analyzed in The Eighteenth Brumaire takes place with neither workers nor the ‘revolutionary interests of their class’ affecting it” (p. 457).
• Political Power as Performance:
  • Napoleon III’s legitimacy is derived not from material class struggle but from historical myth and representation. “Napoleon III consolidated his position by making other names change the world despite their ridiculous inability to describe it” (p. 456).

2. Structuralism and Semiotics

• Crisis of Representation:
  • Petrey highlights how both Balzac and Marx depict the instability of representation, where signs (names, identities, political positions) fail to correspond to reality. “Colonel Chabert enacts the same dissociation of representation and reality, sign and referent, through continuous depiction of a living individual unsuccessfully seeking the name of a man declared dead” (p. 452).
• Language Constructs Reality:
  • The article aligns with Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralism by showing that representation is arbitrary but powerful. “The peasantry’s class being and Chabert’s death are ideal instances of the reality produced by what Austin named performative speech” (p. 464).
• Names and Identity:
  • The case of Chabert losing his identity shows that language does not reflect reality but actively shapes it. “Chabert is therefore the most impertinent of challenges to the philosopheme of representation, a referent separated from its sign” (p. 453).

3. Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

• Destabilization of Meaning:
  • Petrey engages in a deconstructive reading by showing that meaning in Marx and Balzac is always shifting. “Are we a class or are we a sack of potatoes? The French peasants might well ask Marx. In neither case is the answer definitive” (p. 459).
• Rejection of Fixed Reality:
  • Petrey suggests that neither Balzac nor Marx believes in a stable, fixed reality that can be simply represented. “What was ‘concrete’ has become ‘abstract.’ The referent prior to ideology is now the imaginary derivative of ideological production” (p. 466).

4. Performative Theory (J.L. Austin, Judith Butler)

• Performativity in Politics:
  • The article suggests that Napoleon III’s legitimacy is established through performative speech rather than material reality. “The adventurer, who took the comedy as plain comedy, was bound to win” (p. 464).
• Social Construction of Identity:
  • Chabert is legally dead despite being alive, proving that identity is socially constructed through legal and ideological discourse. “Because Chabert is said, conceived, and narrated as dead, his real life-process ceases to be a matter of practical consequence” (p. 454).

5. New Historicism

• Interplay Between Literature and History:
  • Petrey treats Colonel Chabert and The Eighteenth Brumaire as historical texts that both shape and are shaped by their socio-political contexts. “Balzac’s painful descriptions of Chabert’s physical deterioration do not reverse a hierarchy so much as undo the opposition on which it is based” (p. 455).
• Historical Representation as Fictional:
  • The Eighteenth Brumaire shows that history itself is constructed through representation. “Historical tradition gave rise to the belief of the French peasants in the miracle that a man named Napoleon would bring all their glory back to them” (p. 464).

6. Postmodernism

• Reality as a Construct of Narrative:
  • The article suggests that reality is not objectively given but constructed through historical and ideological narratives. “Poetry from the future and dramatis personae from the past are equally false to the present and equally crucial to historical change” (p. 468).
• Blurring of Fact and Fiction:
  • Both Marx and Balzac depict political and social identities as theatrical performances rather than material truths. “Fictions are not that which Marxism must refuse but that which it must incorporate” (p. 468).

Summary of Contributions

Sandy Petrey’s “The Reality of Representation: Between Marx and Balzac” makes significant contributions to Marxist Literary Theory, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Performative Theory, New Historicism, and Postmodernism by showing:

• Representation is not a mere reflection of reality but an active force in shaping it.
• Ideology has material effects, challenging the base-superstructure model.
• Identity and history are performative acts rather than fixed entities.
• Both Marx and Balzac depict history as theatrical and constructed through discourse.

🔹 Critical Race Theory and Structural Racism in Education

• The study examines how teacher attitudes towards race and White privilege reflect and reinforce structural racism in two urban school districts.
• Critical Race Theory (CRT) is used as the framework, emphasizing that racism is pervasive, systemic, and must be actively challenged (Bell, 1992; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
• CRT challenges the idea of “colorblindness” and insists that race is a fundamental structure shaping institutions, including schools (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).

🔹 The Concept of “Whiteness as Property”

• The authors apply Cheryl Harris’ (1993) concept of “Whiteness as property” to analyze teacher attitudes.
• White identity is socially constructed as a property interest that provides unearned advantages, such as the ability to determine social meanings and maintain power.
• Teachers’ responses to anti-bias training reflect this property interest, as they redefine racial discussions in ways that protect White privilege.

🔹 Teachers’ Resistance to White Privilege

• Many White teachers in the study rejected or minimized the idea of White privilege, arguing that they were not responsible for systemic racial inequities.
• Some White teachers equated White privilege with personal guilt rather than a systemic advantage (McIntosh, 1988).
• Others dismissed White privilege entirely, claiming it only exists in predominantly White spaces and not in schools where White teachers were the numerical minority.
• Teachers frequently expressed defensive reactions, such as:
  • “I don’t feel like I’m racist.”
  • “Just because I’m White doesn’t mean I benefited from slavery.”
  • “White privilege doesn’t exist in my school because most of my students are Black.”

🔹 The Individualization of Racism

• Many White teachers reduced racism to personal acts of prejudice, ignoring its structural and institutional nature (Crenshaw, 1995).
• The focus on cultural awareness over systemic inequity allowed racism to persist unchallenged in schools.
• Teachers struggled to acknowledge how their racial position granted them institutional advantages, even when they had “good intentions.”

🔹 Anti-Bias Training and Its Limitations

• The school districts implemented anti-bias training to address racial disparities in student achievement.
• However, these trainings focused primarily on raising awareness rather than changing systemic policies or practices.
• White teachers often reacted defensively, perceiving the training as a personal attack rather than an opportunity for systemic change.
• The authors argue that without structural transformation, awareness alone is insufficient to challenge racism in education.

🔹 The Role of Cultural Awareness vs. Structural Change

• Schools often framed racial disparities as cultural misunderstandings rather than issues of power and inequality.
• Teachers were encouraged to learn about “diverse cultures” through “culture grams” and “culture capsules” rather than critically examining how race and power shape school policies.
• This cultural framework enabled White teachers to avoid discussions of racial power and privilege.

🔹 Backlash and Racialized Resentment

• Some White teachers expressed resentment toward the focus on racial equity, feeling that they were being unfairly blamed.
• One teacher stated: “Because I look Aryan, I’m treated like a racist when I don’t think I am.”
• This reaction highlights how White teachers saw discussions of racism as an attack on their individuality, rather than an examination of systemic power structures.

🔹 The Need for Structural Change

• The authors argue that racial equity in education requires systemic transformation, not just individual reflection.
• Distributive justice (Harris, 1993) is proposed as a model to shift power dynamics and redistribute educational resources equitably.
• Schools must move beyond diversity training to actively challenge racial inequities in funding, curriculum, hiring, and discipline policies.

Conclusion: The Persistence of Structural Racism in Schools

• White teachers’ resistance to anti-racism training reflects broader structural barriers to racial equity in education.
• Without systemic changes to school policies and power structures, teacher training alone will not close racial achievement gaps.
• The study calls for a shift from individual awareness to collective accountability in dismantling racial inequities in education.

1. Overemphasis on Structural Determinism

• The article frames racism as an inescapable structural force, potentially diminishing individual agency and personal responsibility in challenging racism.
• Some scholars argue that CRT’s emphasis on systemic racism can lead to fatalism, implying that no real change is possible within existing institutions (Vaught & Castagno, p. 99-100).

2. Lack of Attention to Nuances in White Teacher Reactions

• The study categorizes many White teachers as defensive or resistant without fully exploring how some may genuinely engage with anti-racist learning.
• Teachers who attempt to change but struggle with new racial frameworks are sometimes lumped in with outright deniers of White privilege (p. 108-109).

3. Limited Discussion on Alternative Approaches to Anti-Racist Education

• While the article critiques teacher trainings as insufficient, it does not fully explore other models of effective anti-racist professional development.
• More discussion on practical policy solutions within educational institutions could strengthen the study’s applicability (p. 111-112).

4. Reliance on Whiteness as Property Without Alternative Theoretical Considerations

• The study relies heavily on Cheryl Harris’ (1993) concept of “Whiteness as Property”, potentially neglecting other theoretical frameworks that could add depth.
• Concepts from intersectionality, class analysis, or decoloniality could provide a more multidimensional analysis of race, privilege, and power in schools (p. 102-103).

5. Generalization of White Teacher Perspectives

• The analysis risks overgeneralizing White teachers as resistant to change, without fully considering how some teachers of color may also struggle with internalized racism or neoliberal multiculturalism.
• The argument that White teachers uniformly fail to recognize structural racism (p. 100-101) might not account for regional, personal, and institutional differences in anti-racist attitudes.

6. Absence of Student Voices and Perspectives

• The study primarily focuses on teacher and administrator responses, but lacks input from students, particularly students of color who experience racism in schools.
• Understanding how students interpret teachers’ racial attitudes could add another layer of critical insight (p. 107).

7. Potentially Polarizing Framing of White Teachers

• Some critics may argue that the framing of White teachers in the study positions them as inherently complicit in systemic racism, which could alienate potential allies in anti-racist education.
• Encouraging a collaborative rather than confrontational approach to teacher training might yield more productive long-term outcomes (p. 110-111).

8. Insufficient Engagement with Historical Changes in Education Policy

• While the article critiques current anti-bias training models, it does not provide much historical context on how educational institutions have evolved in their treatment of race.
• Comparing past and present racial equity efforts might highlight progress and limitations more effectively (p. 104).

9. Limited Discussion of Non-White Teacher Perspectives on Racism

• The study focuses on White teacher attitudes but does not deeply engage with how teachers of color navigate structural racism within schools.
• A broader racialized teacher perspective could provide a more complete understanding of how racism operates in educational settings (p. 106).

·  Sociology of Literature as a Legitimate Field of Study

• Pincott argues against the perception that sociology of literature is a dilettantist endeavor, stating that literature provides as much insight into a society as traditional sociological inquiries (Pincott, 177).
• He criticizes the idea that literature is beyond sociological analysis due to the supposed spontaneity of the creative act, calling this an “extreme” and unproductive argument (Pincott, 177-178).

·  Goldmann’s Dialectical Materialist Approach

• Pincott references Goldmann’s idea that literature should not be analyzed in isolation but as part of a broader social and ideological context:
  • “The ideas and work of an author cannot be understood as long as we remain on the level of what he wrote… Ideas are only a partial aspect of a less abstract reality: that of the whole, living man” (Goldmann, 7; cited in Pincott, 177).
• This perspective frames literature as a reflection of the ideology of social groups rather than just individual authors.

·  The Presence of Ideology in Literature

• Literature inherently contains ideological elements, even if subconsciously expressed. These elements link texts to the social structures of their time (Pincott, 178).
• However, Pincott notes that identifying these ideological elements is often difficult, especially in historical works where authors did not explicitly write with ideological intentions (Pincott, 178-179).

·  Criticism of Arbitrary Literary Analysis

• Pincott critiques content analysis methods that impose subjective interpretations onto texts. He distinguishes between subjective and objective meanings:
  • “What the author meant by a work—the subjective meaning—is less important than what it ‘really means’—the objective meaning” (Goldmann, 759; cited in Pincott, 179).
• This raises the issue of arbitrariness in literary interpretation, as critics might impose meanings that are not explicitly present in the text.

·  Use of Literature as Social Data

• He discusses how literature has been used as historical evidence, giving an example from Matthew Arnold about an agricultural implement mentioned in 18th-century literature that helped settle a historical debate (Pincott, 179-180).
• However, he warns that using literature as historical or sociological evidence is risky because fiction is not always an accurate representation of reality (Pincott, 180).

·  Raymond Williams and the Myth of Organic Society

• Williams criticizes historical commentators who idealize the past as a time of social harmony and argues that literature actually reflects oppression and conflict (Pincott, 180-181).
• However, Pincott questions Williams’ method, noting that literature can misrepresent reality for artistic purposes, making his argument vulnerable to accusations of bias (Pincott, 181).

·  Leavis and the Rejection of Sociological Approaches

• F. R. Leavis argues that literature should be studied purely from a literary perspective, dismissing sociological approaches:
  • “No sociology of literature… will yield much profit unless controlled and informed by a real and intelligent interest… in literature” (Leavis, 198; cited in Pincott, 182).
• Pincott criticizes this stance, arguing that ignoring social context limits our understanding of literature (Pincott, 182).

·  Marxist Interpretations of the Novel

• He examines Marxist theories linking the development of the novel to the rise of the bourgeoisie, referencing Ian Watt’s argument that the novel reflects entrepreneurial individualism (Pincott, 183).
• He also discusses George Huaco’s research on Mexican literature, showing how rapid industrialization affected literary forms, shifting from revolutionary novels to modernist styles (Pincott, 183-184).

·  Lukács and Goldmann on Dialectical Literary Analysis

• Pincott explores Lukács’ and Goldmann’s claims that literary forms and styles reflect worldviews (Weltanschauung).
• He notes the challenge of empirically testing these theories and argues that overly rigid frameworks risk being reductionist (Pincott, 185-186).

·  Comparing Goldmann’s Framework to Greek Tragedy

• Pincott draws a parallel between Goldmann’s analysis of 17th-century Jansenist thought and the ideology of 5th-century Athens.
• He compares Pascal’s dialectical approach to Cartesian rationalism with Aeschylus’ treatment of free will and determinism (Pincott, 187-188).

·  Limitations of Structuralist Approaches

• He critiques structuralist methods (e.g., Levi-Strauss) for their inability to analyze complex literary texts beyond mythology (Pincott, 189-191).
• He concludes that while structuralism provides a scientific framework, it has yet to offer a comprehensive methodology for studying literature (Pincott, 191).

·  Aeschylus’ Political Position

• In an appendix, Pincott discusses the political leanings of Aeschylus, debating whether his plays support democratic or conservative ideologies.
• He argues that Aeschylus’ portrayal of the Areopagus in The Eumenides suggests a conservative defense of aristocratic institutions (Pincott, 192-194).

1. Marxist Literary Theory & Ideology in Literature

• Pincott discusses how literature reflects the ideological structures of society and how it is influenced by economic and class dynamics.
• Reference: “In that case, the sociology of literature will be a sub-heading of the investigation of ideology and the testing of the Marxist hypothesis about superstructural attributes of social groups.” (Pincott, p. 178)

2. Goldmann’s Dialectical Materialism & Structuralism

• The book incorporates Lucien Goldmann’s idea that literature must be analyzed within the broader framework of social structures and collective consciousness.
• Reference: “Ideas are only a partial aspect of a less abstract reality: that of the whole, living man. And in his turn, this man is only an element in a whole made up of the social group to which he belongs.” (Goldmann, quoted in Pincott, p. 177)

3. Sociological Content Analysis in Literary Criticism

• Pincott critiques traditional literary content analysis for being arbitrary and argues for a more structured sociological approach.
• Reference: “The main drawback to this style of analysis is the accusation that what the critic says ‘just isn’t in the text’.” (Pincott, p. 178)

4. Historicism and Literature as a Source of Social History

• Literature can serve as empirical evidence for historical and social conditions, supporting historicist interpretations.
• Reference: “People are constantly using literature as an empirical base from which to extrapolate facts about periods in history.” (Pincott, p. 179)

5. The Role of Class in Literary Production

• The book examines how literary forms and themes evolve based on the class structures in a given historical period.
• Reference: “It often happens that the mode of behaviour which enables us to understand a particular work is not that of the author himself, but that of a whole social group; and, when the work with which we are concerned is of particular importance, this behaviour is that of a whole social class.” (Pincott, p. 177)

6. The Novel as a Bourgeois Form

• Pincott references Ian Watt’s work on the rise of the novel as a product of capitalist and bourgeois values.
• Reference: “A connection has been postulated between the bourgeoisie and the novel, from Hegel and Marx through to Goldmann.” (Pincott, p. 181)

7. The Crisis of Meaning in Literature

• The text explores how different literary forms and themes emerge in response to social crises and ideological shifts.
• Reference: “The tragedy of the 17th and 18th centuries does, like other forms of tragic creation and awareness, express a crisis in human relationship between certain groups of men and the cosmic and social world.” (Goldmann, quoted in Pincott, p. 190)

8. Structuralism and Semiotics in Literary Theory

• Pincott engages with structuralist methods, suggesting that literary meaning is shaped by underlying structures rather than individual interpretation.
• Reference: “Structuralism, as embodied in the area mapped out by Saussure as semiology, starting from structural linguistics, seems to embody great advantage: it rests on the scientific basis of linguistics.” (Pincott, p. 190)

1. Literature as a Product and Influence of Social Interaction

• Merrill argues that literature is both “a product of social interaction” and “an influence upon social interaction” (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).
• It reflects cultural values and past societal interactions while shaping readers’ perceptions and behaviors in the present and future.

2. Symbolic Nature of Literary Interaction

• Social interaction in literature is symbolic, as human beings “interpret or ‘define’ each other’s actions instead of merely reacting” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• The process of writing and reading literature involves symbolic exchanges, making it a legitimate subject of sociological inquiry.

3. Literature as a Reflection of Society

• Merrill references earlier critics like de Bonald, Taine, and Sainte-Beuve, who viewed literature as an “expression of society” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• Three key sociological perspectives on literature:
  1. Literature reflects society.
  2. Literature influences or shapes society.
  3. Literature functions as a means of “social control” to stabilize and justify societal norms (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

4. The Role of the Author and Limitations in Representation

• The relationship between an author’s work and social context is complex: “The author is, by definition, a sensitive person, and his vision of society is not necessarily the same as that of his contemporaries” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• Even comprehensive novelists like Balzac could not encompass all aspects of society.

5. Literature as Social Interaction in Imagination

• Merrill suggests that literature should be viewed as “social interaction in imagination, whereby the possibilities of human behavior are explored in depth” (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).
• Novels allow for role-taking, where readers engage with characters and experience different social realities through fiction.

6. Operational Analysis and Literary Experimentation

• Merrill parallels literature with operational analysis in science, where “analyzing the world in terms of doings or happenings” helps understand human behavior (Merrill, 1967, p. 652).
• The novel serves as a controlled experiment in which social dynamics are tested imaginatively.

7. The Novel as a Social Experiment

• Merrill draws from Emile Zola’s concept of the “experimental novel,” where literature is an “experiment in imagination” (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).
• Zola and Balzac structured their novels like scientific studies, placing characters in specific social settings to observe interactions.

8. Implications for Sociology and Literary Theory

• Merrill concludes that sociology can benefit from literature’s “experimentation in imagination,” as it provides insights into human behavior, social mobility, and institutional structures (Merrill, 1967, p. 659).
• Literature, while distinct from empirical sociology, offers a qualitative analysis of society that complements sociological studies.

1. Establishing Literature as a Sociological Subject

• Merrill asserts that literature is both a reflection and an influence on social interaction, making it a valid field of sociological inquiry (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).
• “Literature is a cultural product that reflects past interaction as interpreted by the author and influences subsequent interaction on the part of the reader” (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).

2. Strengthening the Sociological Approach to Literature

• Merrill builds on Robert Escarpit’s and Herbert Blumer’s ideas, arguing that literature and sociology are interconnected disciplines that study human interaction (Merrill, 1967, pp. 648-649).
• “Social interaction is a symbolic process” and literature, through symbols and metaphors, captures human behavior and societal patterns (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).

3. Literature as a Mirror and Shaper of Society

• Merrill references historical literary critics such as Taine and Sainte-Beuve to argue that literature does not merely “reflect” society but actively “shapes” it (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• “One hypothesis is that literature ‘reflects’ society; its supposed converse is that it influences or ‘shapes’ society” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

4. Influence on Reader-Response and Role-Taking Theories

• Merrill emphasizes how literature allows readers to “take the role of the protagonist,” engaging in social interaction through imagination (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).
• “The reader participates by taking the role(s) of the protagonists” (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).

5. Bridging Symbolic Interactionism and Literary Studies

• Merrill integrates Herbert Blumer’s concept of symbolic interactionism, explaining that literature functions as a space where human actions are interpreted rather than merely observed (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• “Human beings interpret or ‘define’ each other’s actions instead of merely reacting to each other’s actions” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).

6. Linking Literature to Social Control Theory

• Merrill connects literature to ideological critique, arguing that it serves to “maintain and stabilize, if not justify and sanctify, the social order” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• “Literature functions socially to maintain and stabilize, if not to justify and sanctify, the social order, which may be called the ‘social control’ theory” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

7. Conceptualizing Literature as a Social Experiment

• Merrill builds upon Zola’s Experimental Novel to propose that literature is a controlled sociological experiment where human interactions are tested in an imagined setting (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).
• “The novelist does, in a way, what the sociologist is unable to do—namely, present people in group situations where they can play a variety of roles” (Merrill, 1967, p. 654).

8. Advocating for Literature as a Qualitative Sociological Method

• Merrill suggests that literature offers “verifiable knowledge” about social structures, making it an important source of qualitative analysis for sociologists (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).
• “Literature becomes a form of ‘qualitative analysis’—that is, data which Lazarsfeld has characterized as more than illustration but less than definitive proof” (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).

1. Overemphasis on Social Reflection Theory

• Merrill largely focuses on literature as a reflection of society, but critics argue that this perspective neglects the autonomy of literature as an art form.
• Literature is not always a direct mirror of social reality; it can also be abstract, symbolic, or purely imaginative, challenging the deterministic link between literature and society (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

2. Limited Consideration of Reader Interpretation

• While Merrill acknowledges the role of the reader, his framework does not fully explore reader-response theory, which emphasizes how different audiences interpret texts in diverse ways.
• His approach assumes that readers engage with literature in a socially predetermined way, rather than considering subjective and individual experiences (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).

3. Reduction of Literature to Sociology

• Some literary theorists argue that Merrill reduces literature to a sociological case study, overlooking aesthetic, linguistic, and formalist aspects of literary texts.
• Literary meaning cannot be solely derived from its social context; structure, style, and narrative techniques also shape interpretation (Merrill, 1967, p. 659).

4. Neglect of Literary Autonomy and Artistic Value

• Merrill’s sociological approach tends to treat literature as a tool for analyzing society, minimizing its artistic and imaginative qualities.
• Formalist critics, such as those from the New Criticism school, would argue that literature should be analyzed on its own terms, independent of external sociological factors (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).

5. Oversimplification of Authorial Intent

• Merrill suggests that literature reflects the author’s social background and experiences, but poststructuralist critics challenge this, arguing that meaning is constructed by the text itself rather than being dictated by the author’s intent.
• The “death of the author” argument, later formulated by Roland Barthes, contradicts Merrill’s assumption that the author’s perspective is central to understanding literature (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

6. Inadequate Engagement with Postmodern and Postcolonial Criticism

• Merrill’s framework does not account for postmodern literary theories, which question grand narratives and emphasize fragmentation, irony, and intertextuality.
• His analysis also lacks a postcolonial perspective, failing to address how literature interacts with issues of colonialism, race, and identity in non-Western contexts (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

7. Questionable Application of Scientific Method to Literature

• Merrill draws parallels between literary analysis and scientific experimentation, particularly through Zola’s “experimental novel” concept. However, literature does not function as a controlled experiment, and human behavior in fiction cannot be measured like empirical data.
• Sociologists and literary theorists criticize this positivist approach for attempting to impose rigid scientific frameworks onto the inherently subjective and interpretive field of literature (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).

8. Underestimation of Literature’s Ability to Challenge Social Norms

• While Merrill acknowledges that literature can shape society, his argument leans more toward literature maintaining social control rather than subverting dominant ideologies.
• Marxist and critical theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci and Theodor Adorno, argue that literature often functions as a site of resistance against power structures, rather than merely reinforcing them (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).