“Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

“Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History journal, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Winter, 2007), published by the Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal essay, Culler explores the perennial question of “What is literature?” and its evolving significance in contemporary literary theory. He critiques the varied theoretical approaches that attempt to define literature, including functionalist and structuralist perspectives, while emphasizing the cultural and interpretive frameworks that assign literary status to texts. Culler posits that the essence of literature is not bound to objective properties but is shaped by how texts are read and contextualized within cultural discourses. The essay also reflects on the historical and philosophical dimensions of literature, challenging reductive views that restrict its transformative and imaginative potential. By engaging with other critical voices, such as Tzvetan Todorov and Charles Altieri, Culler’s work underscores literature’s role as a dynamic medium for cultural dialogue, aesthetic exploration, and self-construction, making it a cornerstone for understanding the fluid boundaries of literariness in the 21st century.

Summary of “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

1. The Question of “What is Literature?”: Culler examines how defining literature often involves either exploring its societal functions or identifying intrinsic features. Neither approach yields a definitive or universal answer (Culler, 2007, p. 229).
2. Societal Role of Literature: Literature can establish or challenge cultural norms, moral values, and societal ideologies, but these functions are not exclusive to literature, as other cultural forms can perform similar roles (p. 230).
3. Defining Literary Characteristics: Features like fictionality, non-instrumental language, and intertextuality are often cited as defining traits, but these qualities are not unique to literature (p. 230).
4. Literariness as a Cultural Construct: Culler emphasizes that literature gains its status through cultural and interpretive frames, likening it to how weeds are defined by social contexts rather than objective properties (p. 231).
5. Theoretical Debates on Literariness: Referencing Tzvetan Todorov, Culler notes the inability of structural approaches to define literature, highlighting the absence of a single essential feature that distinguishes it (p. 231).
6. Interpretive Approaches to Literature: Culler points out that the question “What is literature?” is often used to promote specific critical methodologies, such as mimesis (focusing on representation) or the foregrounding of language (p. 232).
7. The Contemporary Lens: The addition of “now” in the question reflects shifts in critical theory and media. Scholars like Charles Altieri and Terry Cochran argue for attention to sensuousness and invention in literary experiences, countering institutionalized approaches (pp. 233-234).
8. Temporal and Transformative Nature: Laurent Dubreuil highlights literature’s unique temporality, interacting with past, present, and future while continuously being reinvented (p. 234).
9. Globalization and Media’s Impact: Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore how globalization and new media have transformed literature’s role, with Hayles discussing electronic literature as a continuation and expansion of traditional literary functions (pp. 236-237).
10. Literature and Selfhood: Despite changes, Culler reaffirms literature’s enduring role in shaping selfhood and cultural dialogues, even as its forms evolve (p. 237).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference/Context
Literariness	The quality that makes a text “literary,” often linked to cultural and interpretive frameworks.	Literature is defined not by intrinsic properties but by how it is culturally and historically framed (p. 230).
Mimesis	The representation of reality in literature, focusing on human actions and fictionalization.	Often cited as a defining aspect of literature, emphasizing its capacity for representation (p. 232).
Foregrounding of Language	A focus on language’s structure and aesthetics rather than its utilitarian function.	Critics advocating for this view prioritize the linguistic patterns and artistic features of texts (p. 232).
Intertextuality	The dependent and transformative relationship between a text and other literary works.	Literary works are seen as existing within a network of references to and transformations of other texts (p. 230).
Functional Approach	Examines what literature does in a society, such as shaping culture, ideology, or moral values.	Literature’s societal roles include nation-building and challenging ideology but overlap with other forms (p. 229).
Structural Approach	Attempts to identify intrinsic, defining features of literature.	Tzvetan Todorov critiques this approach, arguing it fails to identify a unique literary essence (p. 231).
Cultural Constructivism	The idea that literature is defined by cultural and historical contexts rather than inherent traits.	Culler compares literature to weeds, emphasizing its context-dependent classification (p. 231).
Temporal Complexity	Literature interacts with multiple temporalities (past, present, future) in its creation and reception.	Laurent Dubreuil’s concept of literature’s “now” emphasizes its temporal and interpretive dimensions (p. 234).
Relational Aesthetic Experience	The role of literature in shaping selfhood through imaginative and interpretive acts.	Garry Hagberg sees literature as instrumental in constructing individual identity (p. 231).
Globalization and Media Shifts	Literature’s role is transformed by globalization and new media technologies.	Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore how new media redefine literature’s form and cultural functions (pp. 236-237).
Deconstruction	A critical approach questioning stable meanings and highlighting textual self-reflexivity.	Culler discusses critiques of deconstruction for allegedly reducing literature to incoherence (p. 233).
Dynamic Heterarchies	Interactions between different levels of textual engagement in electronic literature.	Katherine Hayles examines how computational texts interact with readers and devices (p. 236).
Rhetorical Transaction	Literature as a communicative act between text and reader, emphasizing engagement.	Jan Swearingen critiques cultural approaches that ignore the reader’s role (p. 233).

Contribution of “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

• Expanding the Concept of Literariness:
  • Culler highlights that literariness is not confined to inherent textual features but emerges from cultural and interpretive practices (p. 230).
  • This challenges essentialist notions of literature and aligns with post-structuralist approaches, emphasizing the role of reader and cultural context.
• Critique of Functionalist and Structuralist Approaches:
  • Functional approaches (literature’s societal roles) and structural approaches (identifying intrinsic qualities) are insufficient to define literature (p. 229).
  • Echoing critiques by theorists like Tzvetan Todorov, Culler questions the utility of seeking definitive features (p. 231).
• Integration of Intertextuality:
  • Culler underscores intertextuality as central to understanding literature, as texts transform and depend on other texts (p. 230).
  • This supports theories by Roland Barthes and Julia Kristeva on the relational nature of texts within cultural systems.
• Temporal Dimensions in Literature:
  • Inspired by Laurent Dubreuil, the essay explores how literature operates across temporalities (past, present, future), complicating historical or teleological definitions (p. 234).
  • This aligns with phenomenological approaches, highlighting literature’s dynamic and ongoing creation through interpretation.
• Revisiting Rhetorical Theory:
  • Culler, through Jan Swearingen’s perspective, revives rhetoric as a lens for understanding literature as a transaction between text and reader (p. 233).
  • This counters cultural materialist views that reduce literature to historical or ideological artifacts.
• Critique of Deconstruction’s Impact:
  • The essay discusses deconstruction’s influence, critiquing its perceived focus on incoherence while acknowledging its role in uncovering textual reflexivity (p. 233).
  • This aligns with broader debates on the limits and potentials of deconstructive readings in literary studies.
• Literature in the Age of Globalization:
  • Contributions by Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore literature’s transformation in response to new media and globalization (pp. 236-237).
  • This expands the scope of literary theory to include digital and global cultural production, bridging traditional and contemporary texts.
• Reinforcing Literature’s Role in Selfhood:
  • Literature is presented as pivotal in constructing selfhood, drawing on relational aesthetic theories by thinkers like Garry Hagberg (p. 231).
  • This supports humanistic perspectives in literary theory, emphasizing literature’s transformative impact on identity.
• Challenging Nationalistic and Canonical Perspectives:
  • Culler critiques the historical linkage of literature to nationalism, suggesting its evolution towards transnational forms in globalized contexts (p. 236).
  • This aligns with postcolonial and global literary theories that critique Eurocentric and nationalistic biases.
• Affirmation of Literature’s Unpredictable Knowledge:
  • Culler endorses the view that literature generates unpredictable and transformative knowledge, contributing to theories of creativity and innovation (p. 232).
  • This affirms literature as a site of epistemological exploration rather than static representation.

Examples of Critiques Through “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique/Analysis	Reference/Context
Tzvetan Todorov’s “The Notion of Literature”	Critiques the failure of structural approaches to identify defining features of literature, leading to the provocative question: “Does literature exist?”	Culler discusses Todorov’s skepticism about essentialist definitions of literature (p. 231).
George Sand’s Writings	Appreciated for capturing the “innocent pleasure of living for the sake of living,” highlighting literature’s potential for ethical and emotional enrichment.	Discussed as a counterpoint to deconstructive readings that deny literature’s ability to affirm truths (p. 233).
William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition	Explored as an example of how new media and globalization have shifted literature’s cultural and narrative role, emphasizing the persistence of older literary forms.	Culler references Wegner’s analysis of Gibson’s work to examine literature’s interaction with media (p. 236).
Proust’s In Search of Lost Time	Portrayed as anticipating modern forms of expression like blogs, blending personal narrative with artistic reflection, exemplifying a transnational and non-linear temporality.	Gans compares Proust’s narrative style to contemporary blogging, linking it to shifts in literature’s role (p. 237).

Criticism Against “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

1. Lack of Concrete Definition:
   Despite addressing the complexities of defining literature, the essay does not offer a definitive answer, leaving readers with an open-ended and potentially unsatisfying conclusion about what constitutes literature.
2. Overreliance on Cultural Relativism:
   The argument that literature is defined by cultural and interpretive contexts risks reducing its essence to subjective societal constructs, neglecting universal qualities or enduring aesthetic values.
3. Minimal Engagement with Specific Texts:
   While theoretical, the essay often critiques literary frameworks without providing detailed analyses of specific literary works, which might weaken its practical applicability.
4. Underdeveloped Critique of Functionalism and Structuralism:
   The critique of functional and structural approaches does not explore their potential merits or contributions in depth, leading to a dismissal that might seem overly reductive.
5. Complexity in Language and Theoretical Jargon:
   The essay’s dense language and reliance on theoretical terminology may alienate readers not well-versed in literary theory, limiting accessibility to a broader audience.
6. Insufficient Exploration of Global and Non-Western Perspectives:
   While globalization is briefly discussed, the essay focuses predominantly on Western literary traditions, missing opportunities to incorporate diverse global or non-Western viewpoints.
7. Overemphasis on Temporality:
   The discussion on the temporal complexities of literature, while insightful, may overshadow other critical aspects of literary analysis, such as genre or narrative structure.
8. Inadequate Address of Digital Literature’s Distinctiveness:
   The analysis of electronic literature (e.g., Katherine Hayles’s contributions) downplays its potential to redefine literary norms, treating it more as an extension of traditional literature.

Representative Quotations from “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The question ‘What is literature?’ is not, like ‘What is hematite?’ asked out of ignorance.”	Culler highlights that this question arises from a deeper intellectual curiosity rather than a lack of knowledge (p. 229).
“Literariness is not confined to literature but can be studied in historical narratives, philosophical texts, and cultural practices.”	Culler broadens the scope of what can be studied under the umbrella of literary analysis (p. 230).
“Literature is whatever is treated as literature by a given society.”	Emphasizes the cultural constructivist view that literature’s identity is determined by societal norms (p. 231).
“Whether or not the functional notion of literature is legitimate, the structural notion definitely is not.”	Quoting Todorov, Culler critiques structural approaches for failing to define what makes literature unique (p. 231).
“Within the world of literary experience we accomplish acts of comparison that are both interpretive and self-interpretive.”	Literature is seen as a tool for self-construction and relational aesthetic experiences (p. 231).
“The addition of ‘now’ to the question—’What is literature now?’—can encourage responses designed to critique current approaches.”	The temporal framing of the question shifts its focus to contemporary theoretical trends and critiques (p. 232).
“Literature may be the name of a variable cultural function rather than a class defined by distinctive properties of language.”	Culler argues for a dynamic view of literature that resists rigid categorization based on intrinsic features (p. 231).
“Focus on the sensuousness of aesthetic experience is necessary to explain how literature can build intense imaginative engagements.”	Literary value lies in its ability to evoke imaginative and sensuous experiences, countering reductive analyses (p. 233).
“The impossibility of a definition of literature can be seen as one of its characteristics, as it always comes after.”	Laurent Dubreuil’s idea, referenced by Culler, that literature continuously reinvents itself and defies definition (p. 234).
“Electronic literature, like literature tout court, will end up being about the construction of meaning and thus about literature.”	Katherine Hayles’s argument that digital and traditional literature share fundamental goals of meaning-making (p. 236).

Suggested Readings: “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

1. 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 13 Dec. 2024.
2. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary.” New Literary History, vol. 6, no. 1, 1974, pp. 219–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468350. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “In Pursuit of Signs.” Daedalus, vol. 106, no. 4, 1977, pp. 95–111. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024510. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.