Introduction: “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli
“Literariness, Consensus, or ‘Something Else’?” by Angela Locatelli was first published in 2004 in the journal Tropismes by the Centre de Recherches Anglo-Américaines at Université Paris X Nanterre. This work delves into the complex nature of “literariness” and examines whether literature’s uniqueness stems from intrinsic characteristics, social consensus, or other dynamics. Locatelli challenges the reduction of literature to either a self-referential art or an escapist diversion, emphasizing its epistemic and political relevance in a modern globalized context. Through her analysis, she addresses Russian formalist views on “literariness” as a distinct discourse, while also acknowledging the role of Cultural Studies in unveiling the political and libidinal dimensions of literature. Locatelli argues that neither the rigid abstraction of “literariness” nor the fluctuating “canon” fully encapsulates the literary domain, proposing instead that literature exists in a dynamic state where theories and texts mutually influence each other. This piece contributes significantly to literary theory by urging scholars to recognize literature’s multifaceted nature, underscoring how it transcends simple categorization and continues to prompt ethical, political, and intellectual debate.
Summary of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli
- Epistemic and Political Relevance of Literature: Locatelli argues that recognizing literature’s specific epistemic and political roles is vital, especially as contemporary liberalism promotes vocational priorities over literary and ethical education (Locatelli, 2004, p. 173).
- Concepts of ‘Literariness’ and the Canon: She critiques Russian Formalism’s focus on “literariness” as distinguishing literature from other discourses, asserting that this view overlooks literature’s political and libidinal dimensions, which Cultural Studies emphasize (Locatelli, 2004, p. 174).
- Limits of Formalism and Cultural Studies: While Cultural Studies contextualize literature within broader culture, they risk diluting its distinct qualities; neither strict formalism nor pure consensus fully defines literature (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
- Dynamic, Dialogical Relationship of Theory and Literature: Theories and literature mutually influence and shape each other; literature is a source of diverse theories and resists singular definitions (Locatelli, 2004, p. 175).
- Expanding Canon through Social Consensus: Locatelli addresses debates on canon formation, highlighting scholars like E.D. Hirsch and Stanley Fish, who view literature as a product of social consensus rather than inherent qualities (Alexandrov, 2003, p. 42).
- Conventions as ‘Rules of the Literary Game’: Literature is recognized through aesthetic and social conventions that frame genres and expectations, but which are subject to historical shifts (Coco Davani, 1990, p. 176).
- Defamiliarization and Cognitive Value: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s defamiliarization (ostranenie), Locatelli emphasizes that literary devices disrupt norms, providing readers new perspectives and epistemic energy (Locatelli, 2004, p. 177).
- Relevance of Cultural Ideologies: She aligns literature with semiotics, psychoanalysis, and ideology, noting that literature either supports or critiques cultural norms, a perspective amplified by Cultural Studies and theorists like Gramsci (Lotman, 1990, p. 178).
- Canon and Pedagogy in a Global Context: Locatelli calls for a broader, yet critically evaluated canon, one that includes marginal voices without becoming ideologically rigid or predictable (Savage, 1995, p. 180).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli
| Literary Term/Concept | Explanation | Relevance in Locatelli’s Work |
| Literariness (Literaturnost) | Refers to the distinct quality that makes a text literary, emphasized by Russian Formalists like Jakobson. | Locatelli critiques strict “literariness” for ignoring literature’s political and libidinal aspects (p. 174). |
| Canon | A collection of works considered “literary” or essential by cultural consensus, but often debated for inclusivity. | Locatelli discusses the canon as a socially constructed set of works, historically fluctuating and debated (p. 176). |
| Defamiliarization (Ostranenie) | A technique in which familiar elements are made strange to renew perception, as used by Russian Formalists. | Locatelli sees defamiliarization as critical for literature’s cognitive and epistemic roles (p. 177). |
| Semiotics of Culture | A framework analyzing sign systems in culture, introduced in the Tartu Conference, relating signs to external realities. | It contextualizes literature as a dynamic, ideological discourse influenced by social and cultural contexts (p. 178). |
| Non-Essentialism | The view that literature lacks an inherent essence and is instead shaped by social and ideological factors. | Locatelli draws on scholars like Eagleton to emphasize literature’s definition as historically and ideologically variable (p. 176). |
| Dialogical Relationship | The mutual shaping influence between literature and literary theories, as per Bakhtin’s dialogism. | Locatelli argues that theories and literature co-create meaning in an ongoing, interactive dialogue (p. 175). |
| Double Enunciation | Literature’s capacity to present conflicting messages, often seen in Shakespeare’s works. | Locatelli uses this to highlight literature’s ethical complexity and ambiguity, such as in The Merchant of Venice (p. 183). |
| Plurivocality | Refers to the presence of multiple voices and perspectives within literature, resisting single, fixed interpretations. | Locatelli values literature’s ability to represent diverse viewpoints, fostering debate over rigid doctrines (p. 185). |
| Reader-Response Theory | A literary theory emphasizing the reader’s role in interpreting texts, creating meaning through subjective experience. | Locatelli sees reader-response as shaping canon and literary meaning based on social context (p. 180). |
| Ideology | A system of ideas and ideals, particularly in the context of politics, that influences literary canon and interpretation. | Locatelli discusses how literature can both reflect and critique cultural ideologies (p. 178). |
Contribution of “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli to Literary Theory/Theories
| Literary Theory | Contribution by Locatelli | References |
| Russian Formalism | Locatelli builds on Russian Formalism’s idea of literariness but critiques its narrow focus on formal elements alone, arguing that this approach overlooks literature’s socio-political dimensions. | She questions the reduction of literature to “a special discourse” and suggests that this view misses literature’s cultural and ideological roles (p. 174). |
| Cultural Studies | Locatelli acknowledges Cultural Studies’ emphasis on literature’s libidinal and political aspects but argues that it risks diminishing literature’s unique qualities by subsuming it under broader cultural analysis. | Citing Antoine Compagnon, she notes that Cultural Studies can “delegitimize” literary studies by treating literature as just another cultural practice (p. 174). |
| Non-Essentialist Theory | She aligns with non-essentialist views, noting that literature cannot be defined by intrinsic qualities alone but is constructed by historical and social judgments. | She references E.D. Hirsch, Eagleton, and Fish to emphasize the non-essentialist view that “value-judgments” shape what is deemed literary (p. 176). |
| Semiotics of Culture | By referencing Semiotics of Culture, Locatelli emphasizes the role of context and sign systems in literature, suggesting that literature interacts dynamically with external realities. | The “Tartu Conference” and Lotman’s semiotic approach are highlighted as key to understanding literature’s socio-cultural embeddedness (p. 178). |
| Psychoanalysis | Locatelli connects psychoanalysis with literature’s cognitive effects, pointing to Freud and Lacan, and the mutual influence of literature and psychoanalysis on understanding the unconscious. | She references Felman who argued that “literature is the unconscious of psychoanalysis,” highlighting the cognitive parallels between literary and psychic mechanisms (p. 175). |
| Canon Theory | She critiques traditional canon theory, advocating for a fluid, inclusive canon that adapts to cultural changes, yet warns against limitless expansion, which risks diluting the canon’s specificity. | William J. Savage Jr.’s taxonomy of canons illustrates how different types shape what is considered valuable literature (p. 180). |
| Reader-Response Theory | Locatelli argues for the role of culturally specific reader responses in canon formation, suggesting that the meaning and prestige of literature depend on social contexts and reader engagement. | She discusses how literary reception occurs in specific “social climates,” linking it with the changing status of literary texts (p. 182). |
| Marxist Theory | While critical of Marxist essentialism, Locatelli draws from Marxist critique to argue that literature both reflects and critiques ideological structures, merging literature’s formal elements with sociopolitical analysis. | She notes how Bourdieu and Althusser view the canon as shaped by power dynamics, challenging literature’s ideological content (p. 181). |
| Dialogism (Bakhtin) | Locatelli champions a dialogical approach, arguing that literature and theories continuously shape each other, each creating dynamic interpretations and resisting single perspectives. | Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism influences her view that literature is “dialogical,” adapting and responding to multiple theoretical lenses (p. 175). |
Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli
- Shakespeare’s Hamlet
- Locatelli’s view of literature as dialogical and perpetually resistant to fixed interpretation applies well to Hamlet. She would argue that Hamlet’s thematic depth and complex character motivations illustrate literature’s “insaturability,” as it “invokes and provokes” endless interpretations and challenges even the most sophisticated readings (Locatelli, p. 182).
- George Orwell’s 1984
- Using Locatelli’s critique of the canon and ideology, 1984 can be seen as a work that reflects and critiques dominant ideological structures. Locatelli’s framework underscores how Orwell’s manipulation of language and the concept of “Newspeak” highlight the epistemic potential of literary devices to challenge readers’ stock responses and disrupt normative thought (Locatelli, p. 177).
- Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre
- Through Locatelli’s non-essentialist approach to canon formation, Jane Eyre might be examined for its historical and ideological contexts, questioning why it entered the canon and how it resonated with various social ideologies. Locatelli’s views invite a critique that considers the novel’s changing reception over time and its impact on feminist and socio-cultural discourse (Locatelli, p. 176).
- Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis
- Locatelli’s focus on defamiliarization, or ostranenie, as a cognitive tool can be applied to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Gregor Samsa’s transformation disrupts the reader’s stock responses to identity and humanity, aligning with Locatelli’s belief that literature offers a “fresh point of view” and uses literary devices to explore the psyche and societal norms (Locatelli, p. 177).
Criticism Against “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli
- Overemphasis on Non-Essentialism
- Some critics might argue that Locatelli’s strong stance against essentialist views risks neglecting intrinsic literary qualities that contribute to a work’s enduring appeal. By focusing heavily on social and ideological constructs, her approach could overlook universal aspects that make literature distinct.
- Limited Engagement with Canon Formation Challenges
- Although Locatelli critiques the idea of a rigid canon, she may not fully address the practical challenges of balancing inclusivity with meaningful selection criteria. Critics could argue that her model lacks a concrete framework for reconciling the canon’s expansion with the need to maintain literary quality.
- Ambiguity in “Dialogical” Approach
- While Locatelli advocates a dialogical relationship between theory and literature, some may find this approach too abstract or lacking clarity in practical application. This ambiguity might make it challenging to apply her framework consistently in literary analysis or pedagogy.
- Potential for Relativism in Literary Value
- Critics may argue that Locatelli’s emphasis on cultural consensus risks promoting a relativistic view of literary value, where distinctions between major and minor works blur. This could lead to a situation where any text, regardless of its aesthetic or literary merits, could be considered significant solely based on cultural context.
Representative Quotations from “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The recognition of the specificity of the literary experience is…a political necessity today…” (p. 173) | Locatelli emphasizes that understanding literature’s unique qualities is vital in a world where liberalism often prioritizes vocational over aesthetic and philosophical education, risking the relegation of literature to an “escapist pastime.” |
| “Literature is a dynamic universe, epistemologically and historically more complex and varied…” (p. 175) | This highlights her belief in literature’s constant evolution and complexity, which cannot be captured entirely by rigid theories or the static lists of canonical works. Literature is continually shaped by cultural and historical shifts. |
| “Each theory, in a certain sense, ‘creates’ its own literature, but no theory can saturate the meaning of literature.” (p. 175) | She argues for the dialogical relationship between literature and literary theories, suggesting that theories inform literature but cannot fully encapsulate it. Literature holds an essence beyond the reach of any one interpretive lens. |
| “Conventions ‘authorize’ certain types of textual production…” (p. 176) | Drawing on Coco Davani’s ideas, Locatelli suggests that literature is socially constructed through shared conventions, which authorize and recognize literary texts, but these conventions are historically mutable and context-dependent. |
| “Literary defamiliarization…provides a fresh point of view on the extra-literary world.” (p. 177) | Locatelli supports the Formalist idea of defamiliarization as central to literature’s power, enabling readers to see the familiar in new ways, with profound cognitive and cultural impacts beyond mere formal innovation. |
| “Rather than focusing on formal elements…we can focus on these elements to detect and even deconstruct the ideology of literary texts.” (p. 179) | Here, she advocates a shift from formalist to ideological critique, viewing literature as a means to expose and critique the power dynamics and cultural assumptions embedded within texts. |
| “The canon as consensus does not clearly define what literature is…” (p. 180) | Locatelli critiques the canon’s limitations, noting that while it reflects cultural consensus, it fails to capture the true essence of literature. Instead, she suggests it exposes ideological biases and pedagogical priorities. |
| “Literature is a discourse which resists predictable procedures…” (p. 185) | She argues that literature is inherently complex and refuses reduction to simple doctrines or formulas, underscoring its role in challenging intellectual and ideological conformity. |
| “The specificity of literature must be defended because literature enables us to represent…what other discourses cannot.” (p. 185) | Locatelli asserts literature’s unique capacity to express aspects of human experience that other forms of discourse cannot fully capture, affirming its irreplaceable role in intellectual and cultural life. |
| “Literature is also an ‘indeterminable object’…‘polymorphic’ in a strict etymological sense…” (p. 186) | Locatelli describes literature as ever-shifting and impossible to pin down, containing a multiplicity of forms and meanings that make it resistant to fixed definitions, thus enriching its value and relevance across contexts and interpretations. |
Suggested Readings: “Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”? by Angela Locatelli
- Locatelli, Angela. “Literariness, consensus, or” something else”?.” Tropismes 12 (2004): 173-188. https://ojs.parisnanterre.fr/index.php/tropismes/article/view/359/447
- Miall, David S. “Literariness.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. Routledge, 2015. 191-205.
- Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
- Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
- Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, literariness, and the brain.” Comparative Literature 59.2 (2007): 97-118.
- Guillén, Claudio. “On the Edge of Literariness: The Writing of Letters.” Comparative Literature Studies (1994): 1-24.