Introduction: “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler
“Lyric, History, and Genre” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in its 40th volume, published in the autumn of 2009 by Johns Hopkins University Press. This article addresses the interplay between lyric poetry, historical development, and the concept of genre, reflecting on their implications for literary theory and criticism. Culler explores how genre functions not as a rigid classification but as a dynamic, historical construct, evolving through cultural and intellectual contexts. He critiques traditional, essentialist views of genres, emphasizing instead their open-ended, socially and historically mediated nature. The article underscores the lyric’s unique performative and temporal aspects, positioning it as a central yet historically complex literary form. Culler’s insights contribute significantly to debates on genre theory, challenging the modern tendency to narrowly frame lyric poetry within dramatic or mimetic models, thus enriching our understanding of its broader historical and theoretical dimensions.
Summary of “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler
1. Historical and Theoretical Context
- Culler situates his work within the broader intellectual tradition, highlighting the contributions of New Literary History under Ralph Cohen, which revived interest in literary history and genre as central literary concepts.
- Genre, particularly lyric poetry, is treated as an evolving and historical category rather than a static or essentialist construct.
2. The Dynamics of Genre
- Culler emphasizes that genres are not timeless or logical constructs but are shaped by historical and cultural contexts. He draws on Gérard Genette’s argument that all genres are inherently historical (Genette, 1992).
- He critiques the dichotomy of empirical vs. theoretical genre models, suggesting that both historical practices and theoretical frameworks interplay in defining genres.
3. Genre as Open Systems
- Citing Ralph Cohen, Culler argues that genres are open systems, constantly transforming in response to cultural and social shifts. This view sees genre as an active participant in literary and cultural history rather than a rigid classification (Cohen, 1986).
4. Lyric Poetry and its Generic Challenges
- Lyric poetry presents a unique case, often categorized as a mimetic genre only in the Romantic period. Culler explores how this conception evolved, contrasting classical and Romantic views (Hegel, 1975).
- He identifies lyric as performative and non-mimetic, where the act of enunciation and apostrophic address plays a central role.
5. Apostrophe as a Defining Feature
- Apostrophe, a figure of address that turns to nonhuman or absent addressees, is central to lyric’s performative power. This trope highlights the poet’s imaginative engagement with the world (Culler, 1981).
- Examples include Shelley’s “Ode to the West Wind” and Blake’s “The Sick Rose,” which showcase lyric’s performative aspirations.
6. Lyric’s Temporality and Reader Engagement
- Lyric poetry operates in a unique “lyric present,” creating a sense of immediacy and deferred temporality. This allows the poem to resonate with future audiences, emphasizing its performative and ritualistic nature (Ammons, 2005).
7. Modern Critiques and Reconfigurations
- Modern critics like René Wellek and Virginia Jackson challenge Romantic notions of lyric as a purely subjective or expressive form. Jackson, for instance, critiques the “lyricization” of Dickinson’s work, urging a more historical and contextual understanding of the lyric (Jackson, 2005).
8. Transhistorical and Cross-Cultural Insights
- Culler advocates for a transhistorical and transnational perspective on lyric poetry, seeing it as a genre that transcends cultural boundaries while undergoing local transformations.
- He notes the distinctiveness of lyric as a foundational genre in non-Western traditions compared to its marginalization in classical Western poetics.
9. Genre as a Tool for Historical Comparison
- Echoing Bruce Robbins, Culler views genre as a critical tool for bridging literary periods and traditions, facilitating broader historical and comparative analysis (Robbins, 2007).
10. Broader Implications for Literary Theory
- Culler’s exploration underscores the importance of genre in shaping literary history and understanding literature’s role as a social and cultural institution.
- He calls for a reconsideration of lyric as a dynamic and foundational genre, emphasizing its structural and performative capacities to reshape literary discourse.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Key Context or Example |
| Genre | A historical and cultural construct, not a timeless or logical category. Genres evolve through social, cultural, and literary practices. | Ralph Cohen’s concept of genres as open systems (Cohen, 1986). |
| Lyric | A literary genre characterized by its performativity, focus on enunciation, and a “lyric present” rather than narrative temporality. | Distinguished from dramatic monologues and mimetic modes; Romantic vs Classical views on lyric (Hegel, 1975). |
| Apostrophe | A figure of address turning to nonhuman, absent, or abstract entities, central to the performative and imaginative nature of lyric poetry. | Examples include Blake’s The Sick Rose and Shelley’s Ode to the West Wind. |
| Lyric Present | The immediacy and temporal deferral created by lyric poetry, enabling resonance with future readers while focusing on the present moment of enunciation. | Described as part of lyric’s temporal distinctiveness (Culler, 1981). |
| Performativity | The idea that lyric poetry enacts or performs its meaning, rather than merely describing or representing. | Seen in apostrophic address or enunciation that “creates what it names” (Culler, 2009). |
| Empirical vs. Theoretical Genres | Empirical genres are observed or practiced classifications (e.g., ballads, novels), while theoretical genres are based on fundamental principles of language or thought. | Northrop Frye’s distinction between radical forms of presentation (e.g., drama, epic, lyric) (Frye, 1957). |
| Generic Transformation | The process by which genres change and adapt over time, reflecting social and cultural shifts. | The Excellent Ballad of George Barnwell evolving from ballad to prose chapbook to tragedy (Cohen, 1986). |
| Lyricization | The process through which non-lyric texts (e.g., letters, miscellanies) are framed and read as lyric poetry. | Virginia Jackson’s critique of Emily Dickinson’s critical reception (Jackson, 2005). |
| Triangulated Address | The structure in which lyric addresses an addressee indirectly, creating a complex relationship between speaker, addressee, and audience. | Sappho’s invocation of Aphrodite, involving quoted dialogues within the poem (Carson, 2003). |
| Open Systems of Genre | Genres are defined relationally and are open-ended, evolving through historical moments and cultural practices rather than rigid definitions. | Ralph Cohen’s idea that genres adapt to include new members and redefine themselves over time (Cohen, 1986). |
| Mimetic vs. Non-Mimetic Lyric | Mimetic lyric imitates experience or consciousness (Romantic view), while non-mimetic lyric focuses on performative enunciation and apostrophic address. | Hegel’s romantic theory of lyric vs critiques by René Wellek and others (Hegel, 1975; Wellek, 1970). |
| Dramatic Monologue | A model for understanding lyric as a fictional representation of a speaker’s consciousness and situation, often reconstructed novelistically. | Critiqued by Culler for reducing lyric to narrative and neglecting performative aspects (Langbaum, 1957). |
| Lyric as Social Gesture | Lyric can function as a social act, engaging cultural or communal ideas, rather than purely personal or solipsistic expression. | Waller’s Go, Lovely Rose as an example of lyric involving social indirection. |
| Radical of Presentation | Fundamental modes of literary presentation (e.g., acting, speaking, singing, or writing) that underpin genre distinctions. | Northrop Frye’s theoretical framework for genres (Frye, 1957). |
Contribution of “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Theoretical Reconceptualization of Genre
- Culler advances the view of genres as historical, open systems rather than static, essentialist categories. This challenges traditional literary classifications and highlights genre’s transformative role in literary history.
Reference: Cohen’s open system of genres as evolving through social and historical processes (Cohen, 1986).
2. Expansion of Lyric Studies
- Redefines lyric as a non-mimetic and performative genre, emphasizing the importance of enunciation, apostrophe, and the “lyric present” over narrative or dramatic monologue models.
Reference: Critique of dramatic monologue models of lyric (Culler, 1981; Langbaum, 1957).
3. Importance of Performativity in Lyric
- Positions lyric poetry as performative, where the act of speaking or naming creates meaning, contributing to broader theories of performative language in literary studies.
Reference: Apostrophe as a central trope in lyric’s performative framework (Culler, 2009).
4. Integration of Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on Genre
- Bridges the gap between empirical and theoretical approaches to genre, advocating for a synthesis that reflects both historical practices and underlying structural possibilities.
Reference: Gérard Genette’s historical basis for genres (Genette, 1992).
5. Critique of Romantic and Modern Conceptions of Lyric
- Challenges Romantic views of lyric as pure subjective expression and critiques modern interpretations reducing lyric to dramatic monologue or fictional speech acts.
Reference: Romantic theories of lyric by Hegel and critiques by René Wellek (Hegel, 1975; Wellek, 1970).
6. Development of a Process Theory of Genre
- Emphasizes generic transformation as a dynamic interaction of social, cultural, and aesthetic factors, which redefines literary practices over time.
Reference: Transformation of “The Excellent Ballad of George Barnwell” through various generic forms (Cohen, 1986).
7. Contribution to New Lyric Studies
- Engages with contemporary debates on lyricization, particularly Virginia Jackson’s critique of 19th-century lyric formation, and argues for a capacious understanding of lyric across traditions.
Reference: Jackson’s critique of Dickinson’s lyricization (Jackson, 2005).
8. Promotion of Transhistorical and Transnational Literary Analysis
- Advocates for viewing lyric as a foundational genre across cultures and eras, challenging the marginalization of lyric in classical Western poetics.
Reference: Comparisons of Western and non-Western literary traditions (Robbins, 2007; Miner, 2000).
9. Importance of Address in Lyric Poetry
- Highlights the role of apostrophe and triangulated address in lyric, redefining its rhetorical and communicative dimensions in relation to both addressee and audience.
Reference: Sappho’s triangulated address and apostrophic structures (Carson, 2003).
10. Genre as a Tool for Broad Comparative Literary Studies
- Positions genre as essential for connecting literary traditions, enabling comparative and cross-period analysis that transcends narrow period-based approaches.
Reference: Genre as an instrument for historical comparison (Robbins, 2007).
Examples of Critiques Through “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Critique Through Culler’s Framework | Key Theoretical Insights from Culler |
| Blake’s The Sick Rose | The apostrophic address to the rose establishes it as a sentient addressee, creating a performative moment that foregrounds the poetic act. | Apostrophe as a performative act that constitutes poetic meaning (Culler, 2009). |
| Shelley’s Ode to the West Wind | The wind is addressed as a powerful, almost divine force, and the poet’s apostrophe functions to merge the speaker’s identity with the wind’s transformative energy. | Apostrophe as a means of creating a transformative relationship between speaker and addressee (Culler, 2009). |
| Sappho’s Invocation of Aphrodite | The lyric triangulates address among the speaker, the goddess Aphrodite, and the audience, showcasing the complexity of poetic communication in the lyric tradition. | Triangulated address as a key feature of lyric, connecting speaker, addressee, and audience (Culler, 2009). |
| Waller’s Go, Lovely Rose | The rose becomes a metonym for the speaker’s argument about beauty and temporality, where the indirect apostrophic address softens a potentially direct critique of the beloved. | Lyric as a social gesture; apostrophe as a strategy for gracious and indirect communication (Culler, 2009). |
Criticism Against “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler
1. Overemphasis on Apostrophe
- Critics argue that Culler places too much theoretical weight on apostrophe as a defining characteristic of lyric poetry, potentially overlooking other poetic devices and broader contexts.
2. Limited Engagement with Non-Western Traditions
- While Culler advocates for a transnational understanding of lyric, his analysis primarily engages with Western traditions, leaving non-Western lyrical traditions underexplored.
3. Challenges to the Performative View
- Some scholars question the extent to which lyric poetry can be considered performative, suggesting that Culler’s framework may oversimplify the complex interplay between written text and performed speech.
4. Marginalization of Narrative Elements
- Culler’s focus on the lyric present and non-mimetic qualities of lyric has been critiqued for downplaying the narrative dimensions that exist in many lyric poems.
5. Theoretical Abstraction
- The highly abstract nature of Culler’s arguments, such as his conceptualization of genre as a process, may alienate readers seeking more concrete applications to literary analysis.
6. Neglect of Historical Materialism
- Critics from a Marxist perspective argue that Culler’s emphasis on generic transformations as aesthetic or social acts neglects the influence of material and economic conditions on literary production.
7. Insufficient Rebuttal to Romanticism
- Culler’s critique of Romantic theories of lyric as subjective expression has been deemed insufficiently nuanced, as it does not fully address the enduring appeal and adaptability of Romantic frameworks.
8. Ambiguity in Defining Genre Boundaries
- While advocating for fluid and historical genre boundaries, Culler’s work has been criticized for lacking clarity on how to practically delineate or interpret genre in specific literary texts.
9. Neglect of Reader Reception
- Critics have noted that Culler’s focus on the poetic act and its performative qualities often sidelines the role of reader reception and interpretation in shaping a work’s meaning.
10. Minimal Discussion of Visual and Digital Lyric Forms
- In the context of evolving literary media, Culler’s framework has been critiqued for its limited applicability to visual and digital forms of lyric, which challenge traditional notions of genre.
Representative Quotations from “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Genres are historical assumptions constructed by authors, audiences, and critics to serve communicative and aesthetic purposes.” | This statement emphasizes that genres are not static or natural categories but rather historical constructs shaped by societal and artistic needs. It reflects Culler’s argument that understanding genres requires acknowledging their evolving roles within social and cultural contexts. |
| “The lyric is characterized by its performativity, addressing an audience in a specific lyric present.” | Culler highlights the temporal immediacy of lyric poetry, suggesting that it functions as an event rather than a representation of past occurrences. This perspective shifts focus to the experiential and dynamic aspects of reading lyric poetry. |
| “The notion of apostrophe represents what is most embarrassing in lyric: the pretension to vatic action.” | Here, Culler critiques the figure of apostrophe as a bold and perhaps uncomfortable poetic act, where the poet assumes an almost prophetic role. This challenges readers to confront the lyric’s ambitious attempts to animate and interact with its subjects. |
| “Genres are open systems, defined in relation to one another.” | Culler adopts Ralph Cohen’s theory of genre as fluid and relational rather than rigid and isolated. This reinforces the idea that genres gain meaning through their interaction with other forms, constantly undergoing transformation. |
| “Reading something as an epic or as a novel involves sets of conventions and expectations even when the text is contesting or undermining them.” | This quotation underscores the importance of generic conventions in shaping both the production and reception of literature. Even when texts defy generic norms, these conventions remain integral to their interpretation. |
| “Lyric’s historical construction involves both poets and critics, as they contribute to its evolving definitions and boundaries.” | Culler acknowledges the collaborative role of poets and critics in shaping the concept of lyric over time. This perspective situates lyric as a genre deeply entwined with historical and critical discourse. |
| “Apostrophe works to constitute a poetic speaker taking up an active relationship to a world or element of the world constructed as addressee.” | This explanation of apostrophe emphasizes its function in creating a connection between the poet and their subject, showcasing lyric as a performative and relational genre. |
| “The test of generic categories is how far they help relate a work to others and activate aspects of works that make them rich, dynamic, and revealing.” | Culler defines the purpose of genre as facilitating connections between works and illuminating their unique qualities. This statement highlights genre’s critical function in literary analysis. |
| “The lyric strives to be an event in the special temporality of the lyric present.” | Culler reiterates the centrality of the “lyric present,” where the poem exists as an ongoing, immediate interaction. This concept reframes lyric as an active, unfolding experience rather than a static object. |
| “Foregrounding the generic category of lyric helps promote the possibility of comparisons with other traditions.” | By advocating for a broad conception of lyric, Culler argues for its potential to bridge different literary traditions, encouraging a transhistorical and cross-cultural understanding of the genre. |
Suggested Readings: “Lyric, History and Genre” by Jonathan Culler
- 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.
- Alvergue, José Felipe. “Lyric Redress: The Racial Politics of Voice and American Personhood.” Criticism, vol. 60, no. 2, 2018, pp. 221–45. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.13110/criticism.60.2.0221. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- BUTTERFIELD, ARDIS. “WHY MEDIEVAL LYRIC?” ELH, vol. 82, no. 2, 2015, pp. 319–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24477788. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
- ECKERT, LINDSEY. “READING LYRIC’S FORM: THE WRITTEN HAND IN ALBUMS AND LITERARY ANNUALS.” ELH, vol. 85, no. 4, 2018, pp. 973–97. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26802860. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.