Introduction: “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler
“Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in 2010 in the journal PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association). This seminal work investigates the evolution and shifts in literary criticism, tracing its roots from ancient modes of judgment in poetic performances to modern interpretive frameworks. Culler explores critical transformations, particularly the break from classical genre-based criticism to a focus on literature as a mode of expression. He draws heavily on theorists like Jacques Rancière to articulate this paradigmatic shift and its implications for literary criticism. The essay underscores how the transition from mimesis to expression has diversified the field, giving rise to a wide array of interpretive methods, such as structuralism and poststructuralism, that engage with texts as dynamic systems of meaning. Its importance lies in framing the challenges and opportunities for criticism in the 21st century, particularly amidst technological advancements and changing conceptions of texts and media. Culler’s insights provoke deeper inquiry into the purpose and methodology of literary criticism, encouraging scholars to reconceptualize its role in a rapidly evolving intellectual and cultural landscape.
Summary of “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler
1. Historical Evolution of Literary Criticism
- Literary criticism originated in ancient Greece as judgment of performance and songs, evolving into the evaluation of poetry as a verbal artifact (Ford, 2002).
- Early criticism was tied to mimesis, analyzing the representation and rhetorical effectiveness of works based on their alignment with genre-specific norms.
2. Shift from Mimesis to Expression
- During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a paradigm shift replaced genre-based criticism with the idea of literature as a medium of expression (Rancière, 1998).
- This change emphasized the primacy of language, the indifference of style to content, and a focus on the “mute” nature of texts that critics must interpret (Rancière, p. 49).
3. Modern Frameworks of Criticism
- The 19th and 20th centuries broadened criticism’s scope, moving beyond evaluating texts based on fixed norms. It became interpretative, elucidating deeper meanings such as historical contexts, authorial intent, or linguistic functions (Culler, 2010, p. 906).
- Structuralism emerged as an “antiexpressive project” that enabled new interpretative approaches, focusing on systems of meaning over individual authorship.
4. Challenges in the 21st Century
- Culler questions whether criticism should remain interpretative or develop new frameworks, particularly in light of literature’s shifting cultural role (Culler, 2010, p. 910).
- The rise of electronic media challenges the traditional understanding of texts as fixed artifacts, suggesting an interactive model for both text and reader (Hayles, 2007).
5. Reconceptualizing Literature and Performance
- The essay explores treating literature as performance rather than a static text, with examples like rap music emphasizing rhythm and rhyme as acts of language (Culler, 2010, p. 907).
- Performance studies and textual criticism are positioned as avenues for bridging modern interpretative gaps.
6. Diverse Theoretical Contributions
- Contributors discuss various paradigms, including:
- Marxist criticism’s focus on literature as a reflection and agent of social transformation (Lecercle, 2010).
- Derridean deconstruction, emphasizing the singularity and iterability of texts (Klein, 2010).
- Cognitive approaches and narratology proposing empirically validated frameworks (Fludernik, 2010).
7. The Role of Media in Shaping Criticism
- McGill and Parker argue for understanding texts as products of evolving media, challenging linear literary histories and fostering a multidisciplinary perspective (McGill & Parker, 2010).
- Media adaptations, particularly film, can illuminate unique aspects of literary texts, suggesting new methods for analysis.
8. Aesthetic Categories and Literary Experience
- Sianne Ngai introduces categories such as the cute, the zany, and the interesting to address contemporary aesthetic experiences across media and genres (Ngai, 2005).
- These categories challenge conventional critical frameworks by integrating affective and conceptual dimensions.
9. Pedagogy and the Future of Criticism
- Culler underscores the pedagogical need to adapt literary studies to contemporary cultural and technological shifts, fostering imaginative and critical engagement with texts as events (Culler, 2010, p. 914).
- Literature is positioned as a tool for understanding historical, social, and cultural transformations, with criticism evolving to address these complexities.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Source/Context in the Essay |
| Mimesis | Representation of reality through art and literature, linked to genre-specific norms and rhetorical analysis. | Central to early literary criticism, which evaluated texts based on their alignment with genre norms and their ability to imitate life (Ford, 2002; Rancière, 1998). |
| Expression | Literature as a medium for expressing language, emotions, or societal conditions, breaking from mimesis. | A shift in the late 18th and 19th centuries; emphasizes language and meaning over genre-specific propriety (Rancière, p. 49). |
| Telos | The end goal or purpose of a genre, often defining its evaluative criteria. | Used in classical criticism to determine the success of literary works based on genre-specific aims (Culler, 2010, p. 905). |
| Structuralism | A theoretical approach focusing on systems and codes that enable meaning in texts. | Criticism turned to analyzing cultural and linguistic systems instead of focusing solely on individual works or authorship (Culler, 2010, p. 906). |
| Interpretative Criticism | The task of deciphering and explaining the hidden or implied meanings in texts. | Emerged as the dominant paradigm in modern literary criticism, focusing on what works “mean” (Culler, 2010, p. 906). |
| Mute Text | The idea that a literary work does not “speak” explicitly, requiring critics to uncover its meanings. | Central to modern interpretative criticism, where critics articulate the “mute” expressions of texts (Rancière, 1998, p. 49). |
| Performative Literature | Viewing literary works as events or acts rather than static objects. | Discussed in the context of performance studies and interactive forms like rap music (Culler, 2010, p. 907). |
| Iterability | The capacity of a text or concept to be repeated in different contexts, producing new meanings. | Key to Derridean deconstruction, focusing on the repetition and reinterpretation of literary texts (Klein, 2010). |
| Narratology | The study of narrative structures and their impact on meaning and reader interpretation. | Revived through cognitive approaches and seen as an alternative to hermeneutics (Fludernik, 2010). |
| Cultural Codes | Social and cultural systems that underpin the creation and interpretation of meaning. | Structuralism emphasized analyzing these codes to understand literature as a cultural product (Culler, 2010, p. 906). |
| Aesthetic Categories | Frameworks for evaluating artistic and literary experiences, often tied to emotions and cultural trends. | Examples include “cute,” “zany,” and “interesting,” introduced by Sianne Ngai to address contemporary aesthetics (Ngai, 2005). |
| Digital Texts | Interactive and mutable texts enabled by electronic media, challenging traditional literary paradigms. | Explored through Katherine Hayles’ work on electronic systems and the evolving reader-text interaction (Hayles, 2007, p. 910). |
| Philology | The study of language and textual meaning through attention to historical and linguistic details. | Reclaimed as a future-oriented discipline focusing on the fissures and divisions within language (Hamacher, 2010). |
| Revision Narrative | The study of how texts are revised and reinterpreted across cultures and time, revealing cultural mutability. | Highlighted in John Bryant’s analysis of Moby-Dick and its adaptations (Bryant, 2010). |
| Hauntology | The presence of the past in contemporary texts and contexts, often linked to trauma and memory. | Explored in Shelly Rambo’s work on trauma theory and spectrality (Rambo, 2010). |
Contribution of “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
- Contribution: Culler highlights structuralism’s influence in transforming literary criticism into a systematic inquiry into cultural and linguistic codes. He notes that structuralism dismantled the focus on authorial genius and introduced a broader examination of meaning-making systems.
- Key Insight: Structuralism is credited with opening the “Pandora’s box” of critical possibilities, paving the way for cultural studies, feminist theory, and postcolonial criticism (Culler, 2010, p. 906).
- Reference: “Structuralism, with its conviction that wherever there is meaning there are systems that make meaning possible, laid the groundwork for these investigations.”
2. Poststructuralism/Deconstruction
- Contribution: Culler emphasizes Derridean deconstruction’s role in reshaping criticism to focus on iterability and the singularity of texts. Derrida’s work challenges traditional ideas of textual wholeness, celebrating literature’s resistance to definitive interpretation.
- Key Insight: Klein’s interpretation of Derrida frames deconstruction as the pursuit of “singularity” that reveals literature’s potential to transform meaning in diverse contexts (Culler, 2010, p. 909).
- Reference: “Derrida’s critical performances attempt to respond to the singularity of the texts they treat, taking them on board while writing something equally irreducible.”
3. Expressive Theories
- Contribution: The essay identifies the shift from mimetic poetics to expressive poetics in the 18th and 19th centuries as a foundational change in modern literary theory. It highlights how expressive theories emphasize literature as an articulation of emotions, historical conditions, and societal ideologies.
- Key Insight: This model expanded the interpretative scope of criticism, making it possible to analyze texts as reflections of broader cultural and psychological dynamics (Culler, 2010, p. 906).
- Reference: “The shift to a generalized expressive model allowed criticism to explore works as expressing everything from ideology to the impossibility of literature itself.”
4. Media and Digital Studies
- Contribution: Culler’s discussion of electronic texts challenges traditional notions of literary works as fixed artifacts, proposing a model where texts are dynamic, interactive, and mutable.
- Key Insight: Digital media reimagines the literary work as an instrument to be “played,” introducing new forms of interaction between readers and texts (Hayles, 2007, p. 910).
- Reference: “Katherine Hayles notes that in electronic systems feedback loops enable different levels of interaction, transforming texts as readers perform them.”
5. Performance Studies
- Contribution: Culler integrates insights from performance studies, proposing that literature can be understood as an event rather than a static text. He uses examples like rap music to illustrate the re-emergence of performance as central to literary discourse.
- Key Insight: Performance studies suggest treating texts as acts of language and charting their effects rather than focusing solely on interpretation (Culler, 2010, p. 907).
- Reference: “The rise of rap highlights the possibility of reverting to a notion of the work as an act of language.”
6. Cognitive Narratology
- Contribution: By addressing the emergence of cognitive science in literary studies, Culler points to the integration of empirical methods with narratology to analyze narrative structures and their psychological impact.
- Key Insight: Fludernik’s “natural” narratology proposes a paradigm shift towards explaining literary effects in terms of cognitive processing rather than traditional literary categories (Fludernik, 2010).
- Reference: “An emerging ‘grand coalescence’ of narratology and cognitive science may produce a paradigm shift, though optimism should be tempered with caution.”
7. Marxist Criticism
- Contribution: The essay calls for a return to political criticism, specifically Marxism, to address contemporary issues of capitalism and power dynamics in literature.
- Key Insight: Lecercle positions literature as an agent of transformation, reflecting the language and worldview of societal structures (Lecercle, 2010, p. 908).
- Reference: “Literature captures the past of history, the present of hegemony, and the utopian future of society.”
8. Aesthetic Theory
- Contribution: Culler highlights Sianne Ngai’s work on aesthetic categories like the cute, zany, and interesting as tools for rethinking literary criticism.
- Key Insight: These categories enable critics to approach aesthetic experience as mediated by emotions and consumerist culture (Ngai, 2005).
- Reference: “Categories such as the cute, the zany, and the merely interesting are extremely useful for thinking about aesthetic experience in general.”
9. Philology and Historicism
- Contribution: Hamacher and other contributors reimagine philology as a discipline for analyzing the linguistic and historical fissures within texts, proposing a return to textual criticism.
- Key Insight: Philology focuses on the interval between language and knowledge, emphasizing the nuances of literary speech (Hamacher, 2010).
- Reference: “Philology runs the fissure between the language of longing and the language of knowledge.”
Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Theoretical Framework | Critique/Interpretation | Reference from Culler |
| Flaubert’s Madame Bovary | Expressive Poetics | The novel can be analyzed as a reflection of the emerging 19th-century focus on individual emotions and societal tensions. It moves beyond mimetic norms to explore the language of alienation and despair. | “The new conception of literature observable in Flaubert focuses on internal tensions of modern reflection” (Culler, 2010, p. 906). |
| Melville’s Moby-Dick | Revision Narrative | Analyzing revisions and adaptations of the text, such as Ray Bradbury’s cinematic version, reveals cultural shifts in interpreting themes of colonialism and race. | “Revisions of texts are culturally symptomatic, revealing mutability through which societies reinterpret themselves” (Bryant, 2010). |
| Joyce’s Ulysses | Derridean Deconstruction | Joyce’s fragmented narrative style illustrates iterability, where meanings shift through repetition and reinterpretation, challenging notions of textual singularity. | “Singularity is necessarily divided, taking part in the generality of meaning without being closed on itself” (Klein, 2010, p. 909). |
| Celan’s Poetry | Trauma Theory and Hauntology | Celan’s work can be read as haunted by the historical trauma of the Holocaust, with spectral presences embodying memory and loss in language. | “Hauntology addresses dimensions of memory and trauma, particularly in poetic works like Celan’s” (Rambo, 2010). |
Criticism Against “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler
- Overemphasis on Historical Evolution
Critics argue that Culler’s extensive focus on the historical evolution of criticism—such as the transition from mimesis to expression—overshadows more contemporary and urgent theoretical concerns, limiting its applicability to present-day challenges. - Limited Engagement with Non-Western Literatures
The essay predominantly centers on Western literary traditions and paradigms, failing to adequately address critical frameworks from non-Western or marginalized literatures, which are increasingly vital in global literary discourse. - Ambiguity in Theoretical Future
While Culler raises questions about the future of criticism, he offers limited concrete solutions or new paradigms, leaving many of his inquiries unresolved and overly abstract. - Neglect of Practical Criticism
The essay focuses on theoretical developments but provides minimal guidance on applying these paradigms to practical criticism, leaving a gap for readers seeking actionable methods. - Reliance on Established Theorists
Critics note that Culler heavily references established figures such as Derrida, Rancière, and Foucault, which may reinforce traditional academic hierarchies rather than exploring emerging or alternative voices. - Overgeneralization of Paradigms
Some scholars suggest that Culler’s categorization of paradigms, such as expressive poetics and structuralism, oversimplifies their diverse and nuanced applications in literary criticism. - Neglect of Aesthetic Pleasure
The essay downplays the role of aesthetic pleasure and the reader’s emotional engagement with literature, which many believe remains central to literary studies. - Technological Challenges Underexplored
While Culler mentions the impact of digital texts, critics argue that he fails to fully explore the complexities and implications of technology on literature and criticism in the 21st century. - Fragmentation of Ideas
The essay’s structure, which integrates multiple theoretical perspectives, has been critiqued for being overly fragmented, making it difficult to identify a unified thesis or direction.
Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Only when singers became ‘poets,’ craftsmen of words rather than performers, could a properly ‘poetic’ literary criticism emerge as the special knowledge…” | Highlights the historical evolution of literary criticism from oral traditions to text-based analysis, emphasizing the transformation of literature into an artifact that invites systematic critique. |
| “This cosmological change can be expressed strictly as the term-by-term reversal of the four principles that structured the system of literature as mimesis.” | Describes the shift from classical concepts of literature (mimesis) to modern paradigms, where language, equality of representation, and writing replace fiction, genre norms, and rhetorical propriety. |
| “Criticism may, of course, still pursue the evaluative project, but…it must inquire what the norms should be for the evaluation of a given text.” | Explains the broadened scope of criticism in the post-normative era, where critics question the very foundations of their evaluative criteria. |
| “The work is mute, and the critic must speak for it, unfolding the hidden meaning.” | Reflects the interpretive task of criticism under the expressive model, emphasizing the role of critics in uncovering and articulating the deeper significance of a literary work. |
| “The expressive model opens a vast range of possibilities for literary criticism, enabling the efflorescence of criticism in the second half of the twentieth century.” | Suggests how expressive paradigms have expanded the domain of literary criticism, allowing diverse approaches and interpretations. |
| “Will criticism continue to be primarily interpretive? Are there new models of interpretation?” | Raises questions about the future direction of literary criticism, urging a reevaluation of its priorities and methodologies in the face of changing cultural and technological landscapes. |
| “Electronic texts can literalize (and perhaps trivialize) this condition. More significantly, they can lead to a ‘reimagining of the literary work as an instrument to be played.’” | Considers the impact of digital technology on literature, highlighting the potential for interactive texts to reshape our understanding of literary works as dynamic and evolving entities. |
| “In the humanities, one might conjecture, we prefer to advance through rereading, reinterpreting texts and movements of the past.” | Suggests that progress in literary criticism often arises from revisiting and recontextualizing historical texts, underlining the iterative nature of critical thought. |
| “Structuralism…laid the groundwork for these investigations…encouraged attention to reading and to such matters as the cultural construction of gender.” | Credits structuralism for its pivotal role in establishing the theoretical foundations of various critical fields, such as gender and cultural studies, despite its later critiques. |
| “Literary criticism, in particular, advances by rereading, which is also invention, of course, but which legitimizes itself under the banner of fidelity…” | Highlights the dual nature of literary criticism as both interpretative and creative, where reengagement with texts reveals overlooked or misinterpreted elements. |
Suggested Readings: “Introduction: Critical Paradigms” by Jonathan Culler
- Dawson, Paul. “Style, the Narrating Instance, and the ‘Trace’ of Writing.” Style, vol. 47, no. 4, 2013, pp. 466–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.47.4.466. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- CULLER, JONATHAN. “Introduction: Critical Paradigms.” PMLA, vol. 125, no. 4, 2010, pp. 905–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41058288. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- Culler, Jonathan. “Problems in the ‘History’ of Contemporary Criticism.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 17, no. 1, 1984, pp. 3–15. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1315457. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- Culler, Jonathan. “Lyric, History, and Genre.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 879–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666452. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.