Introduction: “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
“History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism’” by Judith Newton first appeared in the journal Cultural Critique, No. 9 (Spring 1988), published by the University of Minnesota Press. In this influential article, Newton interrogates the rise of the New Historicism within literary studies, critiquing its failure to account for the foundational contributions of feminist theory and feminist historiography. She challenges the marginalization of feminist scholars in the narrative of postmodern literary theory and contends that feminist criticism not only anticipated many of the assumptions later associated with New Historicism—such as the cultural construction of subjectivity and the historicity of representation—but often did so from a more politically engaged and socially transformative position. Newton argues that feminist critics had long explored how power, gender, and ideology shaped historical narratives and literary production, and she calls for a broader, more inclusive definition of New Historicism—one that integrates feminist insights and refuses the erasure of women’s intellectual labor. The essay is widely considered a key intervention in literary theory, urging scholars to recognize the political stakes of theoretical practice and to engage in more inclusive historiographies of criticism.
Summary of “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
🔑 Key Ideas from Judith Newton’s “History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism'”
🔹 1. New Historicism’s Ambiguous Identity
- Newton critiques the vagueness and internal contradictions in defining “new historicism,” noting it is “as marked by difference as by sameness” (Newton, 1988, p. 87).
- She asks whether it’s “a unique and hot commodity” or simply a “set of widely held, loosely ‘postmodernist’ assumptions” (p. 87).
🔹 2. Core Assumptions of New Historicism
- Practitioners assume “no transhistorical or universal human essence,” with subjectivity “constructed by cultural codes” (p. 88).
- Representations are not neutral; they “make things happen” by “shaping human consciousness” (p. 89).
🔹 3. Feminist Scholarship’s Exclusion from New Historicist Narratives
- Newton criticizes how feminist contributions have been omitted from histories of theory and new historicism, despite feminist theory’s foundational role (p. 91).
- Feminists “have sometimes participated in this erasure of their own intellectual traditions” (p. 92).
🔹 4. Feminist Origins of Postmodern Assumptions
- Feminist thought contributed to “postmodernist” critiques before French theory was widely embraced, often rooted in “personal change and commitment” (p. 94).
- These ideas, rooted in activism and experience, fostered a “sense of political possibilities” (p. 94).
🔹 5. Feminist Rearticulation of Theory
- Feminist theorists developed distinctive takes on objectivity, proposing “situated and embodied knowledges” over relativism (p. 98).
- They aim for “webs of connection, called solidarity in politics and shared conversation in epistemology” (p. 99).
🔹 6. Feminist History and the Redefinition of “History”
- “New Women’s History” foregrounded the role of women as agents in history, challenging the public/private binary and masculinist historiography (p. 100).
- Feminist historians revealed how “gender relations and gender struggle” shaped historical developments, often predating Foucault (p. 101).
🔹 7. Feminist Literary Criticism as Historical Practice
- Feminist critics “situate literature in relation to history,” treating representation as “political” and deeply intertwined with gendered power (p. 104).
- Historical readings by feminist literary scholars often emphasize “materialist” and interdisciplinary strategies (p. 105).
🔹 8. Gender as Central to Understanding Power
- Feminist work redefines power not only as dominance but also “power in disguise,” such as resistance, silence, and emotional labor (p. 102).
- This insight reframes power dynamics traditionally overlooked by male-centered models.
🔹 9. Feminism’s Potential to Transform New Historicism
- Newton proposes that “materialist feminist literary/historical practice” yields a richer, more nuanced understanding of history and subjectivity (p. 117).
- She argues for greater collaboration between feminists and cultural materialists to deepen historical analysis (p. 120).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
| 🌟 Term/Concept | 📖 Explanation | 🔍 Usage in the Article |
| 🌀 New Historicism | A literary-critical movement that sees literature as embedded within cultural, social, and political discourses. | Newton explores whether it is a unified school or a broad set of postmodernist strategies. She critiques its emerging orthodoxy and exclusion of feminist histories. |
| ♀️ Feminist Theory | Critical approaches grounded in the analysis of gender inequality and the representation of women. | Newton insists feminist theory shaped “postmodern” assumptions and calls out its omission in new historicist narratives. |
| 🧠 Subjectivity | The ways in which individuals are shaped by and internalize cultural codes and social norms. | Feminism brought focus to how women’s subjectivity is constructed differently and often invisibly in history. |
| 📜 Postmodernism | A skeptical, anti-essentialist stance toward grand narratives, objectivity, and fixed meanings. | Newton aligns feminist critique with postmodernist assumptions but argues for feminism’s distinct articulation. |
| 🧱 Cultural Materialism | A British form of Marxist literary criticism that views literature as a material product of culture and ideology. | Mentioned as a cousin to new historicism; Newton emphasizes feminism’s deeper roots and more intersectional critique. |
| 🔄 Cross-cultural Montage | Juxtaposition of literary and non-literary texts to reveal ideological interrelations. | Newton shows how feminists had already been doing this with diaries, manuals, legal records, etc., before new historicism labeled it. |
| 📚 Representation | The depiction or construction of reality through language, images, or discourse. | Newton insists that representation has material consequences and is a site of ideological struggle. |
| 💬 Hegemonic Ideology | Dominant worldviews that naturalize power structures. | Newton critiques how non-feminist new historicism overemphasizes hegemony, underplaying resistance and female agency. |
| 🔥 Social Change & Agency | The potential for individuals or groups to transform society. | Central to Newton’s feminist critique — she shows how feminism models social change and not just cultural reproduction. |
| 🚪 Marginalization | The social process of relegating groups to the edge of cultural, political, or academic discourse. | Newton critiques how feminist work has been marginalized in academic histories of theory like deconstruction and new historicism. |
Contribution of “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton to Literary Theory/Theories
1. 📚 New Historicism
📌 Contribution:
Newton critiques the notion that New Historicism is a neutral or revolutionary academic practice. She shows how it marginalizes feminist contributions, portraying it as a male-dominated project that reinvents ideas feminists were already working with.
🔍 Example from the Article:
“Histories of the ‘new historicism’ are beginning to remind me of…deconstructive thought…even the most current histories represent feminist theory as the simple receptor of seminal influence…” (p. 91)
📌 Impact:
Newton challenges the disciplinary canonization of New Historicism, calling for a broader, intersectional approach that includes gender and feminist labor. She insists feminist work should not be retroactively appropriated into male-defined theoretical traditions.
2. ♀️ Feminist Literary Criticism
📌 Contribution:
Newton defends and repositions feminist criticism as not only responsive but foundational to theoretical developments. She positions it as a producer of theory, especially around subjectivity, power, and representation.
🔍 Example from the Article:
“Feminist theorizing of the ‘post-modern’ variety has been part of the Women’s Movement from the beginning.” (p. 94)
📌 Impact:
She articulates a feminist historicism that emphasizes experience, situated knowledge, and personal-political engagement, challenging the idea that feminist theory is derivative of deconstruction or postmodernism.
3. 📖 Postmodernism
📌 Contribution:
Newton critiques postmodernism’s tendency toward relativism and depoliticization, showing how feminists developed postmodern ideas (e.g., the critique of objectivity, constructed subjectivity) through lived experience and political urgency.
🔍 Example from the Article:
“Feminist challenges to the notion of ‘objectivity’ have not usually led to relativism… but rather to defining a ‘feminist version of objectivity’—situated and embodied knowledges…” (p. 98)
📌 Impact:
Newton offers a version of politicized postmodernism, grounding theoretical abstraction in feminist and activist contexts. She promotes epistemological alternatives rooted in accountability and partial perspective (à la Haraway, Harding).
4. 📕 Cultural Materialism
📌 Contribution:
While cultural materialism and New Historicism are typically linked, Newton shows how materialist feminist criticism shares common assumptions but articulates them differently—especially in recognizing women’s labor, agency, and discursive contributions.
🔍 Example from the Article:
“Although materialist feminist criticism has drawn heavily on Marxist and cultural materialist theory… it may still be differentiated… by the degree to which it takes gender as an organizing category in ‘history.’” (p. 106)
📌 Impact:
She positions materialist feminism as a distinctive critical formation, not to be absorbed under male-defined theories. She emphasizes the intersection of gender and class in ways cultural materialism alone often neglects.
5. 🧩 Reader-Response and Psychoanalytic Theories
📌 Contribution:
Newton doesn’t engage directly with these, but she implies their limitations by contrasting them with feminist historicism’s focus on experience, community, and material history, over textual play or personal introspection.
🔍 Example from the Article:
“What is theory, after all, ‘good’ for?” she asks rhetorically, insisting theory should serve political and communal purposes (p. 96)
📌 Impact:
Her perspective aligns more with object-relations feminist theory (e.g., Chodorow, Gilligan), as she encourages literary historians to consider emotional and material conditions shaping subjectivity and representation (p. 120).
🧱 Summary: Key Contributions
| 📌 Theory | 🚀 Newton’s Contribution |
| New Historicism | Critiques male dominance, calls for feminist inclusion and restructuring |
| Feminist Criticism | Centers feminist theory as original, radical, and epistemologically unique |
| Postmodernism | Advocates for politicized, situated knowledge over relativist detachment |
| Cultural Materialism | Insists on gender as a structural, historical analytic often ignored by class-based models |
| Psychoanalysis (implied) | Prefers feminist-materialist notions of the self over textual or personal abstraction |
Examples of Critiques Through “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
| 📚 Literary Work | 📝 Critique Through Newton’s Lens | 🧠 Theoretical Frame | 🌈 Symbolic Marker |
| 🏰 Condition of England Novels (e.g., Mary Barton, North and South) | These novels reflect a paradoxical Victorian ideology: portraying working-class suffering while reinscribing patriarchal domesticity. Newton notes their public/private binary reproduces gendered power. | New Historicism + Feminist Critique of Domestic Ideology | ⚖️ Public vs Private |
| 👑 Victorian Women’s Manuals (e.g., The Book of Household Management by Mrs. Beeton) | Manuals promote domestic ideology from a female-authored, moralizing voice, showing how women contributed to hegemonic power while also resisting it subtly. Newton highlights their agency within containment. | Cultural Materialism + Materialist Feminism | 🧵 Gendered Agency |
| 💉 Medical Discourse & Birth Debates (e.g., chloroform in childbirth debates) | Newton (via Poovey) critiques how male-dominated scientific texts pathologized women’s bodies while excluding women’s voices, illustrating epistemic violence through “objective” discourse. | Postmodern Feminism + Situated Knowledge | 💊 Power of Representation |
| 🧚♀️ Victorian Governess Novels (e.g., Jane Eyre) | Newton shows how these novels represent gender-class intersectionality, as women navigate public labor while performing femininity. Feminist historicism reveals the contradictions of subjecthood. | Feminist Historicism + Class/Gender Critique | 🎭 Multiple Identities |
📌 Key Concepts Across All:
- Representation has material consequences 🧠
- Gender and class must be analyzed intersectionally 🎯
- Women were both subject to and producers of ideology 🔄
- Private/domestic spheres were politically charged 🏠
Criticism Against “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
Overemphasis on Feminist Contribution as Original
Some critics argue that Newton overclaims the uniqueness of feminist theory, suggesting feminists were the first to introduce postmodern insights (like the constructed subject) when these were also present in other theoretical traditions like post-structuralism and Marxism.
→ Critique: Exaggeration of feminist “primacy” in theory development.
🔍 Selective Reading of New Historicism
Newton tends to highlight the male dominance in New Historicism, but critics suggest she downplays the diversity within the field, including scholars like Jean Howard, who also engage feminist concerns.
→ Critique: Unfair generalization of “new historicists” as gender-blind.
📘 Symbol: 📖 Partial Scope
📏 Not Enough Empirical Engagement
While Newton critiques others for ignoring feminist scholarship, she herself is seen as insufficiently grounded in historical primary texts in parts of her analysis, relying heavily on secondary commentary.
→ Critique: More rhetorical than evidentiary in some places.
📘 Symbol: 📉 Light on Data
🧩 Theory Over Accessibility
Though Newton advocates valuing feminist labor and accessibility, parts of her own work remain densely theoretical. Critics find this in tension with her call for clarity and solidarity among feminist theorists.
→ Critique: Calls for inclusivity yet adopts academic jargon.
📘 Symbol: 🌀 Theory vs Praxis
⚖️ Binary Framing of Feminism vs New Historicism
Some readers argue that Newton frames feminism and New Historicism as mutually exclusive or antagonistic, missing opportunities to emphasize synergies and hybrid approaches.
→ Critique: False dichotomy weakens nuanced collaboration.
📘 Symbol: ⚔️ Unnecessary Polarization
📚 Neglect of Non-Western Feminist Historicism
The essay largely centers American and British feminist discourse, with little mention of postcolonial or global feminist voices. Critics see this as a missed opportunity to de-center Western theory.
→ Critique: Limited geographical inclusivity.
📘 Symbol: 🌍 Western-Centric Lens
🎭 Idealization of Feminist Theory’s Internal Diversity
While Newton rightly emphasizes feminist theory’s heterogeneity, some argue she idealizes feminist unity and underplays internal conflicts (e.g., between radical, liberal, and postmodern feminists).
→ Critique: Glossing over feminist ideological tensions.
📘 Symbol: 🧵 Over-unity
Representative Quotations from “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton with Explanation
| 📘 Quotation | 🌈 Explanation |
| 🔍 “Feminists… have sometimes participated in this erasure of their own intellectual traditions.” | Newton critiques how feminists at times accepted marginal positions, contributing to their own invisibility. |
| 🌟 “She who writes history makes history… speaking from somewhere other than the margins.” | A powerful call for feminist scholars to claim intellectual authority rather than remain peripheral. |
| 📚 “‘New historicism’… comes out of the new left… but barely alluded to… are the mother roots—the women’s movement.” | She exposes the absence of feminism in standard narratives about the rise of New Historicism. |
| 🧬 “Feminist theory… womb containing the ‘seeds’ of deconstructive thought… those ‘seeds’ were really ovum all along.” | Newton flips metaphors to assert that feminist theory wasn’t derivative—it was generative. |
| 🗺️ “Writing feminist theory and scholarship into the histories… may mean participating in the definition of what ‘new historicism’ is going to mean.” | Feminist scholars must actively shape academic movements and definitions. |
| 🔥 “It was our passion that put these matters first on the theoretical agenda.” | Feminist theory is driven by real-world urgency and emotional truth—not abstract detachment. |
| ⚡ “Feminists had their own break with totalizing theories… Anger is more like it.” | Feminists rejected male-dominated grand narratives with righteous rage and a hunger for change. |
| 👩🔬 “Women’s theoretical labor seemed part of life and therefore not like ‘real’… male—theoretical labor at all.” | Feminist contributions were undervalued because they didn’t conform to academic (i.e., male) standards. |
| 🧩 “Middle-class ideology is implicitly challenged… but internally it is fairly stable…” | Ignoring gender flattens complexity—ideologies appear more stable than they are. |
| 🌱 “Perhaps their labels by now may be wearing thin… Perhaps… their new history is no longer new… and it is no longer—history as usual.” | Newton envisions a future where feminist theory is integrated into the norm—not treated as a novelty. |
Suggested Readings: “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
- Newton, Judith. “History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism.’” Cultural Critique, no. 9, 1988, pp. 87–121. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354235. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
- Newton, Judith. “History as Usual?: Feminism and the New Historicism.” Starting Over: Feminism and the Politics of Cultural Critique, University of Michigan Press, 1994, pp. 27–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.10109.6. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
- Dimock, Wai-Chee. “Feminism, New Historicism, and the Reader.” American Literature, vol. 63, no. 4, 1991, pp. 601–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2926870. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
- Harpham, Geoffrey Galt. “Foucault and the New Historicism.” American Literary History, vol. 3, no. 2, 1991, pp. 360–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/490057. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.