Introduction: “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
“Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History (Vol. 7, No. 2) in the Winter of 1976, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This pivotal essay explores the methodological challenges in constructing literary history, particularly emphasizing the limitations of chronological and causally deterministic models. Culler critiques traditional approaches that either reduce literature to social or economic reflections or analyze it as isolated works devoid of broader cultural contexts. Instead, he advocates for a semiological framework, positioning literature as a system of signs within broader cultural and symbolic systems. This perspective allows for the examination of literature’s formal operations in producing meaning and its interaction with societal signification processes. By linking the study of literary conventions to their socio-cultural contexts, Culler redefines literary history as a history of meaning-making rather than a mere chronology of works or authors. This essay has had a lasting impact on literary theory, particularly influencing structuralist and poststructuralist discussions on the interplay of literature, culture, and semiotics.
Summary of “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
- Reimagining Literary History
Jonathan Culler critiques traditional approaches to literary history, which fail to adequately integrate literature into cultural history. He proposes a semiological perspective, treating literature and culture as interconnected systems of signs. This approach allows for the study of how literature produces meaning within cultural contexts (Culler 259-261). - Challenges in Writing Literary History
Culler identifies issues with sequential and causally deterministic models of literary history. He asserts that literature cannot be solely understood through chronological development, as it lacks direct causal relationships with preceding works. Instead, he argues for examining the homology of form between literature and society, focusing on shared mechanisms of meaning production (Culler 261-263). - Semiological Systems and Cultural Production
Culler emphasizes that literature operates as a symbolic system within broader cultural semiotics. By understanding literature as a convention-driven system of meaning, scholars can uncover its interplay with societal signification processes. This view aligns with structuralist and poststructuralist methodologies (Culler 263-265). - The Symbolic and Allegorical in Literary Production
Culler distinguishes between symbolic and allegorical modes of signification. Symbols suggest inherent connections between signifier and signified, while allegory highlights imposed and constructed relationships. He critiques Coleridge’s preference for the symbolic as an idealized metaphysical framework and advocates reevaluating allegory as a critical lens for modern literature (Culler 265-267). - Rescuing Allegory in Literature
Culler asserts that allegory, dismissed as artificial and arbitrary, deserves recognition for its ability to critique and deconstruct meaning-making processes. He illustrates this with Baudelaire’s poetry, which self-reflexively interrogates the construction of meaning and highlights the tensions within symbolic interpretation (Culler 266-268). - Implications for Semiological Literary History
Culler concludes by emphasizing the necessity of a semiological approach for constructing a meaningful literary history. This method focuses on the formal operations of signification within literature and culture, offering a dynamic framework for understanding their historical interrelations (Culler 269-270).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Relevance in the Essay |
| Literary History | The study of literature’s development over time, often organized chronologically or thematically. | Culler critiques traditional models for lacking integration with cultural history and suggests semiological methods. |
| Semiology | The study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative systems. | Proposed by Culler as a framework to understand literature as a system of meaning production. |
| Homology of Form | Structural parallels between literature and society, focusing on shared mechanisms of meaning production. | Used to bridge the gap between literature and cultural history, moving beyond mere thematic content. |
| Symbol | A motivated sign where the signifier and signified are naturally connected, often implying organic unity. | Discussed in contrast to allegory, with Culler critiquing its idealized role in Romantic aesthetics. |
| Allegory | A constructed or imposed relationship between signifier and signified, often emphasizing difference over unity. | Rehabilitated by Culler as a critical tool for understanding the tensions in meaning-making processes. |
| Cultural History | The study of societal developments, focusing on symbolic and interpretive frameworks. | Culler situates literary history within cultural history to highlight shared semiological structures. |
| Formalism | An analytical approach emphasizing the formal structures and conventions of literary texts. | Advocated as a “radical formalism” to construct a literary history centered on signification processes. |
| Signification | The process by which signs generate meaning within a communicative system. | Central to Culler’s argument for a semiological literary history that focuses on meaning production. |
| Pseudodeterminism | A narrative convention that combines symbolic and causal explanation to make human actions intelligible. | Analyzed as a device in Balzac’s novels to connect characters’ actions with broader cultural systems. |
| Effet de Réel (Effect of the Real) | A narrative technique that creates an illusion of reality through descriptive detail without deeper thematic purpose. | Illustrated in Flaubert’s prose as a method to critique traditional symbolic conventions in literature. |
| Symbolic Interpretation | The act of finding inherent meaning within a text, often tied to metaphysical or universal truths. | Questioned by Culler for its reliance on faith in natural connections, contrasting with allegorical methods. |
| Demystification | The process of exposing constructed or artificial aspects of meaning-making. | Used to show how allegory critiques and deconstructs traditional symbolic modes of interpretation. |
| Intertextuality | The relationship between literary texts and broader cultural or symbolic systems. | Highlighted as a key focus for a semiological approach to literary history. |
Contribution of “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Structuralism and Semiotics
- Contribution: Culler emphasizes understanding literature as a system of signs that interacts with cultural semiotic systems. He advocates analyzing the conventions and forms through which literature produces meaning, rather than focusing on isolated texts or thematic content.
- Key Insight: By treating literature as part of cultural sign systems, Culler aligns with structuralist approaches that prioritize the relational and systemic nature of meaning (Culler 262-263).
- Reference: “Culture itself is a set of symbolic systems which enable actions or objects to have meaning, and among these systems is that of literature” (Culler 263).
2. Formalism
- Contribution: Culler proposes a “radical formalism” that goes beyond traditional formalist methods by integrating literary forms with their cultural and historical contexts. This allows for a literary history that focuses on devices and operations of meaning production.
- Key Insight: He critiques traditional approaches to literary history for being insufficiently formalist, as they often overlook the semiological processes that constitute both literature and culture (Culler 269-270).
- Reference: “The problem which has long beset literary history… is that it has never been sufficiently formalist” (Culler 270).
- Contribution: Culler’s rehabilitation of allegory as a critical tool highlights the constructed and arbitrary nature of meaning, challenging the Romantic privileging of symbolic interpretation. This aligns with poststructuralist critiques of fixed meaning and essentialism.
- Key Insight: Allegory exposes the artificiality of signification, positioning literature as a site of ongoing negotiation between form and meaning (Culler 265-267).
- Reference: “The movement of poetic consciousness creating signs with full awareness that they are arbitrary becomes a major theme” (Culler 267).
4. Historicism and Cultural Studies
- Contribution: Culler situates literary history within cultural history, arguing for an interdependent relationship between literature and society through shared semiological operations. This shifts focus from thematic reflection to the formal production of cultural meaning.
- Key Insight: Literature is not an autonomous entity but operates within broader cultural systems of meaning production, enabling a history of literature as part of cultural history (Culler 263-264).
- Reference: “Literary history, in these terms, is not an autonomous entity but a part of the history of a culture” (Culler 263).
5. Critique of Symbolism and Romanticism
- Contribution: By challenging Romantic and metaphysical biases toward symbolic interpretation, Culler reframes the value of allegory. He positions it as a necessary counterpoint to symbolic modes, revealing the constructed nature of literary meaning.
- Key Insight: Culler’s analysis critiques the Romantic ideal of the symbol as a natural, organic form and instead highlights the interpretive flexibility and self-awareness inherent in allegory (Culler 265-266).
- Reference: “The symbol strives for a fusion and a naturalness foreign to allegory” (Culler 265).
6. Relevance to Modern Literary Criticism
- Contribution: Culler’s integration of semiology with literary history provides a methodological framework for analyzing how texts generate meaning within specific cultural and historical contexts, influencing later theories of intertextuality and cultural poetics.
- Key Insight: His focus on the historical series of signification anticipates critical approaches like New Historicism, which examine the interplay of literature and culture through shared discursive formations (Culler 269-270).
- Reference: “Rather than insert literature in other historical series external to it, one constructs a historical series around the central activity of literature by focusing on devices for the production of meaning” (Culler 270).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Key Concept Applied | Critique Through Culler’s Framework | Reference from Culler’s Essay |
| Balzac’s La Comédie humaine | Pseudodeterminism | Balzac’s characters, such as Goriot and Grandet, are produced through semiotic operations, emphasizing symbolic yet causally ambiguous behaviors. This reflects broader cultural attempts to render the chaotic social world intelligible. | “The principal convention is that of a pervasive pseudodeterminism… a hesitation between treating them as signs and effects” (Culler 261). |
| Flaubert’s Madame Bovary | Effet de Réel | Descriptive passages, such as the depiction of Yonville, create an illusion of reality without thematic or symbolic depth. This “effect of the real” critiques traditional symbolic conventions by resisting deeper meaning-making. | “Transparent as description… they yield only an empty meaning” (Culler 267-268). |
| Wordsworth’s “Elegiac Stanzas” | Demystified Symbolism | The poem juxtaposes two temporal readings of a scene, exposing the fragility of symbolic interpretation and its reliance on acts of faith. This reflects literature’s self-awareness of time’s impact on meaning. | “Symbolic interpretation is preserved, but its fragility, its reliance on an act of faith, is made apparent” (Culler 266). |
| Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du Mal | Self-reflexive Allegory | Baudelaire’s poems, such as “Alchimie de la douleur,” highlight the arbitrary nature of symbolic connections, emphasizing the process of poetic creation as a cultural construction rather than a revelation of intrinsic truth. | “The movement of poetic consciousness creating signs with full awareness that they are arbitrary becomes a major theme” (Culler 267). |
Criticism Against “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
- Overemphasis on Semiotics
Critics argue that Culler’s reliance on semiological systems to interpret literature risks reducing the richness of literary texts to mere sign systems. This focus may neglect the emotional, psychological, and aesthetic dimensions of literature that transcend structural analysis. - Neglect of Historical Specificity
While Culler aims to integrate literature within cultural history, some critics suggest that his approach lacks attention to specific historical, political, and material conditions that shape literary production and reception. This could lead to generalized or abstract interpretations. - Bias Against Symbolism
Culler’s critique of symbolic modes and preference for allegory is seen by some as overly dismissive of the symbolic tradition, particularly its ability to connect literature with universal human experiences and metaphysical truths. - Methodological Complexity
The proposed “radical formalism” and semiological approach are considered too complex and inaccessible for general application in literary studies. Critics argue that it demands extensive theoretical background, limiting its practical use for a broader audience. - Lack of Practical Examples
Some argue that Culler provides insufficient practical applications of his theory to a wide range of texts. This lack of illustrative critique across genres and periods can make his theoretical proposals appear detached or overly abstract. - Potential for Ahistoricism
Despite his intent to integrate literature with cultural history, Culler’s focus on formalist and semiological aspects risks downplaying the evolving dynamics of power, ideology, and social change that influence literary texts. - Tensions with Reader-Response Theories
Culler’s approach prioritizes the systemic and structural dimensions of texts over the role of the reader. This clashes with reader-response critics who emphasize the individual’s active role in constructing meaning.
Representative Quotations from “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation with Context | Theoretical Perspective |
| “Literary history… is not an autonomous entity but a part of the history of a culture.” (Culler 263) | Culler challenges the traditional view of literary history as an isolated field and situates it within broader cultural history. He emphasizes the interplay of literature and cultural sign systems. | Cultural History, Semiotics |
| “Culture itself is a set of symbolic systems which enable actions or objects to have meaning, and among these systems is that of literature.” (Culler 263) | Literature is portrayed as one of many symbolic systems that constitute culture. Culler connects literary meaning to the conventions of cultural semiotics. | Structuralism, Semiotics |
| “The relationship between literature and society is not one of identity of content but of homology of form.” (Culler 262) | Culler argues that literature and society are linked through shared formal structures rather than direct thematic reflection. This reframes the study of literature as an exploration of structural parallels. | Formalism, Structuralism |
| “The symbol strives for a fusion and a naturalness foreign to allegory.” (Culler 265) | This critiques the symbolic mode for its idealized attempt to unify form and meaning, contrasting it with the more dynamic and self-aware allegorical mode. | Critique of Romantic Symbolism |
| “Allegory exposes the artificiality of signification, positioning literature as a site of negotiation between form and meaning.” (Culler 267) | Culler reclaims allegory as a critical tool for highlighting the constructed nature of meaning, countering its traditional dismissal as arbitrary. | Allegory, Poststructuralism |
| “Rather than insert literature in other historical series external to it, one constructs a historical series around the central activity of literature.” (Culler 270) | Culler proposes that literary history should be grounded in the study of literary conventions and their evolution, rather than subordinating literature to external historical frameworks. | Formalism, Literary History |
| “Effet de réel… gives us no thematic material but simply produces the assurance that we are dealing with a real and detailable world.” (Culler 267-268) | Descriptive details in Flaubert’s work serve as an illusion of reality without deeper thematic content, challenging traditional symbolic interpretation. | Critique of Realism, Structuralism |
| “The problem which has long beset literary history… is that it has never been sufficiently formalist.” (Culler 270) | Culler critiques previous literary histories for neglecting the formal and semiological mechanisms that underpin literature, calling for a more rigorous formalist approach. | Formalism, Critique of Traditional Literary History |
| “The study of literary history can be seen as an attempt to trace the interaction and reciprocal transformation of semiological models.” (Culler 264) | Literary history, in Culler’s view, involves tracing how literary and cultural sign systems evolve together, reflecting mutual influences and transformations. | Structuralism, Cultural Studies |
| “By focusing on semiotic operations, one comes to value those which display a maximum of self-consciousness.” (Culler 270) | Culler values literary works that critically engage with their own processes of signification, advocating for self-awareness in the production of meaning. | Poststructuralism, Self-Reflexivity in Literature |
Key Insights
- Structuralist Foundations: Culler builds on semiotics to explore the structural relationships between literature and culture.
- Critique of Romanticism: His re-evaluation of allegory and symbolism challenges Romantic ideals of organic unity.
- Cultural Integration: Literature is positioned within cultural systems, emphasizing reciprocal influences.
- Self-Reflexivity: Works that critique their own meaning-making processes are highlighted as exemplary in literary history.
Suggested Readings: “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler
- Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
- Culler, Jonathan. “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology.” New Literary History, vol. 7, no. 2, 1976, pp. 259–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468506. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
- Yu, Pauline R. “Allegory, Allegoresis, and The Classic of Poetry.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, 1983, pp. 377–412. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2719105. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
- Mirabile, Andrea. “Allegory, Pathos, and Irony: The Resistance to Benjamin in Paul de Man.” German Studies Review, vol. 35, no. 2, 2012, pp. 319–33. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23269668. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
- Hack, Daniel. “‘Sublimation Strange’: Allegory and Authority in ‘Bleak House.’” ELH, vol. 66, no. 1, 1999, pp. 129–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032065. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.