“History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

“History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse first appeared in the January 1993 issue of Narrative (Vol. 1, No. 1), published by the Ohio State University Press. This seminal article explores the evolution of narrative within literary and historical theory, emphasizing its centrality to understanding modernity. Armstrong and Tennenhouse interrogate how poststructuralist critiques, drawing from figures like Derrida and Foucault, have overlooked narrative’s role as a mechanism of cultural production. They argue that narrative is not merely a vehicle for representation but an act of intellectual labor that constructs and naturalizes cultural and historical realities. The authors challenge the distinction between text and narrative, proposing that narrative constitutes a material process central to the rise of modern individual and cultural formations. This work is foundational in reframing narrative as both a historical and political process, enriching literary theory and cultural history by highlighting its transformative power in shaping societal structures and ideologies.

Summary of “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

1. Structuralism and Narrative’s Centrality:
   • The article begins by highlighting the shift in literary theory when structuralism introduced a new focus on narrative in the 1970s, displacing New Criticism’s emphasis on poetry. Narrative was seen as a symbolic method for addressing cultural and ideological conflicts (Armstrong & Tennenhouse, 1993, p. 46).
   • Narratives are defined as social and ideological processes capable of engaging individual creativity while simultaneously resolving collective cultural tensions (p. 46).
2. Poststructuralism’s Marginalization of Narrative:
   • With the rise of poststructuralism, narrative analysis became marginalized, as theorists prioritized concepts like discourse, écriture, and the symbolic over traditional narrative forms (p. 47).
   • Poststructuralists, such as Derrida and Foucault, avoided treating narrative as distinct, reducing it to a subcomponent of broader cultural inscriptions (p. 48).
3. Narrative as Intellectual Labor:
   • Armstrong and Tennenhouse propose redefining narrative as a trace of intellectual labor that reconstructs and naturalizes cultural materials, granting them historical causality (p. 48).
   • They argue that narrative plays a critical role in the development of modernity, serving as a medium for articulating cultural transitions and the rise of the “author” as a figure of modern power (p. 49).
4. Historical Causality of Writing and the Author:
   • The authors examine the emergence of the author in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, arguing that this shift represents a fundamental cultural transformation. The author became central to cultural production, displacing the anonymous collectivity of writing (p. 49–50).
   • This “rise of writing” parallels the development of modern individuality, consolidating the author’s role as a cultural figure while transforming narrative into a transparent window into human subjectivity (p. 51).
5. Critique of Traditional Historiography:
   • Traditional historical accounts often render writing secondary to economic and political developments. Armstrong and Tennenhouse challenge this, emphasizing writing’s foundational role in constructing modernity (p. 52).
   • They critique both structuralist and poststructuralist tendencies to devalue narrative’s ability to historicize intellectual labor, advocating for a reevaluation of its cultural and historical significance (p. 54).
6. Milton, Narrative, and Modernity:
   • Using Paradise Lost as a case study, the authors explore how narratives like Milton’s reshaped English culture, bridging Renaissance ideals and modern middle-class humanism (p. 55).
   • Milton’s work exemplifies how narratives articulate cultural shifts by transforming past symbols into tools of modern intellectual empowerment (p. 56).
7. Narrative’s Role in Colonial and National Identity:
   • The captivity narratives of English settlers in North America illustrate how narrative constructs identity, transforming cultural dislocation into a myth of return to origins (p. 56).
   • Similarly, Richardson’s novels reimagined English culture in a way that facilitated the rise of a novel-reading public, reflecting the transformation of narrative into a vehicle of modern nationalism (p. 57).
8. Conclusion: Challenging the Divide Between Text and Narrative:
   • Armstrong and Tennenhouse argue for dismantling the distinction between text and narrative, positing that all writing inherently contains narrative elements that demand critical analysis (p. 58).
   • They assert that understanding narrative as an act of intellectual labor provides new insights into modern cultural and historical developments, emphasizing its enduring relevance to literary and historical theory (p. 58).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context in the Article
Narrative	A trace of intellectual labor that organizes and naturalizes cultural materials, connecting individuals and society.	Described as a historical, political, and psychological process that articulates and reshapes cultural categories, allowing them to appear as natural or inevitable (p. 48).
Structuralism	A theoretical approach emphasizing universal structures, such as myths, to explain cultural phenomena.	Structuralism brought narrative to prominence by interpreting it as a symbolic means of solving cultural problems, but it was later supplanted by poststructuralism (p. 46).
Poststructuralism	A critique of structuralist assumptions, focusing on the instability of meaning and the role of discourse in shaping reality.	Poststructuralism marginalized narrative by emphasizing broader categories like discourse, écriture, and textuality, avoiding direct analysis of narrative’s unique contributions (p. 47).
Écriture	A French term often used in poststructuralist theory to denote the act of writing as an autonomous process.	Poststructuralists like Derrida framed écriture as foundational to meaning-making, yet they neglected how narrative functions within these broader systems (p. 48).
Discourse	A system of representation that structures and limits the production of knowledge and meaning.	Foucault’s focus on discourse overshadowed narrative, framing it as part of broader hegemonic systems rather than as a unique cultural and historical force (p. 49).
Author	A historically constructed figure whose emergence signals the rise of individualism and modern cultural authority.	Armstrong and Tennenhouse trace the appearance of the author in the 17th and 18th centuries as central to modernity, transforming narrative into a means of connecting individual consciousness with cultural and historical processes (p. 50).
Genealogy	A historical method used to trace the development of concepts and practices, emphasizing discontinuity and contingency.	Inspired by Foucault, the authors use genealogy to explore how narratives construct cultural authority and reshape historical understanding, critiquing traditional historiographical continuity (p. 54).
Symbolic	A domain of cultural meaning-making that organizes social relations and representations.	Poststructuralist theories integrate narrative into the symbolic but often fail to address how narrative uniquely structures the symbolic (p. 48).
Master Narrative	A dominant, overarching story that organizes cultural meaning and history.	Examples include the Oedipus myth or the American dream, which traditional literary criticism takes as universal truths. Poststructuralism disrupts these narratives by exposing their constructed nature (p. 48–49).
Textuality	The concept that all cultural artifacts function as texts, shaped by systems of signs and meaning.	The authors critique the tendency to reduce narrative to textuality, arguing that this approach often detaches the text from its historical and cultural production (p. 52).
Historical Causality	The idea that certain phenomena (like writing) have a causal role in shaping historical and cultural developments.	Armstrong and Tennenhouse emphasize writing and narrative as historically causal forces, challenging the traditional relegation of writing to a derivative role in history (p. 52–53).
Intellectual Labor	The process by which narratives and writing reshape cultural materials and establish new social realities.	Defined as central to the creation and transformation of cultural and historical narratives, intellectual labor is framed as a core mechanism of modernity (p. 48–49).
Imperialist Nostalgia	A longing for an imagined past that justifies and reconstructs cultural authority in new contexts.	The authors use this concept to analyze narratives like Paradise Lost and captivity accounts, which transform cultural loss into frameworks for modern authority (p. 55–56).
Supplement	Derrida’s term for the idea that writing adds to and displaces speech, revealing the instability of origins.	Armstrong and Tennenhouse apply this concept to argue that narratives supplement historical accounts, reshaping cultural materials and creating new frameworks of meaning (p. 53).
Hegemonic Formations	Power structures embedded in cultural representations and practices.	Poststructuralism’s focus on hegemony often subsumes narrative analysis, but the authors argue for narrative’s distinct role within these formations (p. 48).
Modernity	A historical period characterized by individualism, literacy, and cultural transformations.	The emergence of the author and the rise of narrative are linked to the onset of modernity, where writing plays a central role in shaping cultural and historical consciousness (p. 50).

Contribution of “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Reframing Narrative within Poststructuralism:
   • Armstrong and Tennenhouse argue for reinstating narrative as a vital element within poststructuralist frameworks, which often subordinate it to concepts like discourse, écriture, and textuality (p. 47–48).
   • They highlight narrative as a unique cultural process capable of reshaping historical and ideological materials, challenging the poststructuralist tendency to marginalize its importance (p. 49).
2. Historical Agency of Writing and Narrative:
   • The article positions writing and narrative as historically causal forces that actively shape cultural and social structures, rather than as derivative or secondary phenomena (p. 52–53).
   • This perspective challenges traditional historiography and aligns with critical theories that emphasize material conditions and intellectual labor as key factors in cultural production (p. 54).
3. Intervention in Structuralism and Myth Analysis:
   • Drawing on structuralist ideas, the authors expand the role of narrative beyond symbolic myth-solving to a mechanism of cultural transformation (p. 46).
   • This redefines narrative as not only reflective of cultural problems but also as a means of introducing new cultural paradigms (p. 47).
4. Critique of Humanist Master Narratives:
   • The work critiques the humanist reliance on master narratives (e.g., the Oedipus myth, the American dream) as universal frameworks, showing how these narratives are historically contingent and ideologically constructed (p. 48–49).
   • This aligns with poststructuralist critiques of universality in humanist literary theory, particularly those of Derrida and Foucault (p. 49).
5. The Rise of the Author as a Cultural Figure:
   • The authors connect the emergence of the author in the 17th and 18th centuries to modernity, offering a historical lens on individualism and cultural authority in literary theory (p. 50).
   • This aligns with theories of authorship, such as Foucault’s “What Is an Author?” and Barthes’ “Death of the Author,” while reintroducing narrative as central to understanding this transition (p. 51).
6. Narrative as Intellectual Labor:
   • Armstrong and Tennenhouse conceptualize narrative as a trace of intellectual labor, a process of reorganizing cultural materials to produce new social realities (p. 48).
   • This contribution enriches Marxist and materialist approaches by foregrounding narrative’s active role in cultural production (p. 53).
7. Integration of Genealogy and Narrative Analysis:
   • The authors employ Foucauldian genealogy to explore how narrative constructs cultural authority, offering a method that integrates poststructuralist historical critique with narrative analysis (p. 54).
   • This creates a bridge between historical materialist and deconstructive approaches to literary and cultural studies.
8. Narrative and Imperialist Nostalgia:
   • The concept of imperialist nostalgia is used to analyze how narratives like Paradise Lost reconstruct and transform cultural loss into modern authority (p. 55–56).
   • This theoretical lens contributes to postcolonial studies, particularly in understanding how narratives negotiate identity and cultural transformation (p. 56).
9. Challenging the Text-Narrative Divide:
   • The article challenges the distinction between text and narrative, arguing that all writing inherently contains narrative elements and thus must be analyzed through the lens of narrative theory (p. 58).
   • This contribution aligns with Derrida’s concept of the supplement while extending its application to broader cultural and historical contexts (p. 53).
10. Narrative and Modernity:
    • The authors connect narrative to the emergence of modernity, emphasizing its role in shaping cultural practices, social identities, and intellectual frameworks (p. 50–51).
    • This contribution reinforces the idea that narrative is central to understanding modern cultural history, complementing theories of modernity from thinkers like Fredric Jameson and Hayden White (p. 54).

Examples of Critiques Through “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

Literary Work	Critique through the Lens of the Article	Key Concepts from the Article Applied
Paradise Lost by John Milton	– Armstrong and Tennenhouse analyze Paradise Lost as a narrative that bridges the cultural gap between Renaissance ideals and modern middle-class humanism (p. 55). – The poem is critiqued for transforming past symbols into tools for modern intellectual empowerment, articulating the fall of aristocratic culture while constructing a narrative of modern individuality.	– Narrative as Intellectual Labor: The poem exemplifies the transformation of cultural materials. – Imperialist Nostalgia: Nostalgia for an imagined aristocratic past reshapes modernity (p. 55–56).
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe	– The authors argue that Robinson Crusoe represents the narrative of self-making and isolation, aligning with the rise of modern individuality (p. 50). – This work is analyzed as a product of narrative’s role in consolidating modern capitalist and colonial ideologies.	– Modernity and the Author: The protagonist reflects the emergence of the individual as an economic and cultural subject. – Master Narratives: Aligns with the myth of progress and colonial expansion (p. 50).
Pamela by Samuel Richardson	– Richardson’s Pamela is critiqued as a narrative that reorganizes English culture into a reproducible text, shaping the rise of a novel-reading public (p. 57). – The authors highlight its role in constructing middle-class morality and redefining gender roles.	– Narrative as a Reproducible Form: The work illustrates how narratives transform speech communities into text-based cultural formations. – Rise of Writing: Writing empowers new social realities (p. 57).
Captivity Narratives (Various)	– English captivity narratives from North America are analyzed as tools for reconstructing and transforming English identity in a colonial context (p. 56). – These narratives turn dislocation into a return to an imagined originary English culture, legitimizing colonial expansion.	– Imperialist Nostalgia: These works reflect a longing for an imagined pure English past (p. 56). – Narrative as Intellectual Labor: Reconstructs identity and cultural authority in the colonial context (p. 56).

Criticism Against “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

1. Overemphasis on Narrative’s Role:
   • Critics may argue that Armstrong and Tennenhouse overemphasize the centrality of narrative in shaping cultural and historical processes, potentially sidelining other significant forces like economic, political, and technological developments.
2. Limited Engagement with Counterarguments:
   • The authors primarily critique structuralist and poststructuralist theories but do not fully engage with alternative perspectives from other critical traditions, such as Marxist materialism or feminist theory, that might challenge their assertions.
3. Dependence on Foucauldian Frameworks:
   • While innovative, their reliance on Foucauldian genealogy may limit their approach to understanding narrative’s role, as it does not account for more dynamic or dialectical relationships between narrative and other cultural practices.
4. Simplification of Poststructuralist Theories:
   • The article could be critiqued for simplifying poststructuralist positions, such as Derrida’s concept of écriture or Foucault’s theories of discourse, potentially misrepresenting their nuanced views on narrative’s role within these frameworks.
5. Historical Scope and Generalizations:
   • By focusing on the 17th and 18th centuries, the authors might neglect the diversity of narrative functions in other historical and cultural contexts, leading to broad generalizations about narrative’s role in modernity.
6. Ambiguity in Definitions:
   • The definition of narrative as “intellectual labor” may be seen as overly abstract, lacking precise criteria that distinguish it from other forms of cultural and textual production.
7. Undermining Human Agency:
   • Their emphasis on narrative as a cultural process tied to intellectual labor might be criticized for underplaying individual creativity and the role of authors as conscious agents in cultural production.
8. Potential Formalist Bias:
   • The critique of poststructuralist formalism might inadvertently lean into a formalist approach itself by focusing predominantly on narrative structures while sidelining broader material or sociopolitical influences.
9. Neglect of Reader Response:
   • The article does not adequately consider the role of readers and audience reception in shaping the meaning and impact of narratives, a key dimension in contemporary literary theory.
10. Lack of Concrete Methodology:
    • While the article offers theoretical insights, it provides limited practical methodology for applying their critique of narrative to a broader range of texts or disciplines.

Representative Quotations from “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Narrative is an act of articulation that makes, remakes, and naturalizes cultural materials.”	This highlights the role of narrative in shaping cultural understanding, emphasizing its creative and reconstructive nature in framing historical and social realities. It situates narrative as central to how societies construct meaning and sustain cultural norms.
“Narrative might, in other words, be called the trace of intellectual labor.”	This conceptualizes narrative as a product of intellectual effort, linking it to broader processes of cultural production and historical interpretation. It redefines narrative as an active participant in constructing knowledge rather than merely representing it.
“Writing produces its author rather than the other way around.”	This challenges traditional notions of authorship, suggesting that the act of writing shapes and constructs the identity of the author, rather than the author imparting meaning onto the text from an independent position.
“History is a narrative of origins that locates the categories of industrial cultures in the past.”	This critique of historiography argues that historical narratives often naturalize the present by anchoring it to a constructed past, shaping contemporary cultural and social orders as inevitable outcomes of historical development.
“Poststructuralism charges writing with the mysterious power to create what it presumes to represent.”	A critical observation on poststructuralist theory, this statement highlights the paradox in ascribing to writing both the power to create meaning and the inability to ground it in anything but its own operations, questioning the limits of textual autonomy.
“The rise of the author coincided with the disappearance of writing as a field of objects in its own right.”	This situates the emergence of the modern concept of the author within a historical shift where writing ceased to be seen as a tangible activity and became a transparent medium for individual expression, linking it to broader cultural changes.
“Narrative is the illusion of depth created by the text.”	Drawing from Foucault, this challenges traditional interpretations of narrative as a window into deeper truths, positing instead that narrative operates on the surface, producing coherence and causality as a rhetorical effect rather than uncovering inherent meaning.
“Modern history has been composed backward so that it can specify where something presently exists ‘came from.'”	This critiques the teleological bias of historical writing, arguing that modern historiography often retroactively imposes coherence and causality to legitimize current conditions, rather than critically examining their constructed nature.
“The story of discourse should explain how writing came to dominate cultural practices.”	This calls for a historical investigation into how writing gained its centrality in modern culture, emphasizing the need to connect the dominance of textual practices with broader social, political, and economic transformations.
“Writing displaces speech and relocates the early modern speech community further into the past with each replication.”	This articulates a process by which writing continually redefines cultural origins, portraying each act of writing as distancing society from its perceived authentic past, reshaping collective identity through textual production.

Suggested Readings: “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

1. Armstrong, Nancy, and Leonard Tennenhouse. “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative.” Narrative, vol. 1, no. 1, 1993, pp. 45–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20106992. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
2. Fludernik, Monika, and Brian Richardson. “Bibliography of Recent Works on Narrative.” Style, vol. 34, no. 2, 2000, pp. 319–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.34.2.319. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
3. Caplan, Jane. “Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, and Deconstruction: Notes for Historians.” Central European History, vol. 22, no. 3/4, 1989, pp. 260–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4546152. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.