“New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

“New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History, Vol. 25, No. 4, in its 25th Anniversary Issue (Autumn, 1994). Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, this essay critically examines the evolving role of journals in shaping literary studies, particularly highlighting the contributions of New Literary History to the integration of European theoretical frameworks into the American academic landscape. Culler discusses how the journal, initially oriented toward rethinking literary history, became a platform for introducing and debating diverse theoretical perspectives such as structuralism, deconstruction, and psychoanalytic criticism. Emphasizing its pioneering role in fostering dialogues between American and European thought, the essay underscores the journal’s importance in reshaping the critical methodologies and intellectual horizons of literary studies, marking it as a vital force in the evolution of contemporary literary theory. Its impact lies in facilitating the cross-pollination of ideas that encouraged more explicit theoretical reflection and methodological innovation within the discipline.

Summary of “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Reference/Context in Article
New Criticism	A mid-20th-century literary movement emphasizing close reading and textual analysis over historical or biographical context.	Culler discusses how journals like The Southern Review and The Kenyon Review propelled this movement (Culler, 870).
Structuralism	A theoretical approach focusing on underlying structures (e.g., language, myth) that shape texts and cultural practices.	Represented in early New Literary History volumes through contributions by Lévi-Strauss and Todorov (Culler, 873-874).
Poststructuralism	A reaction against structuralism, emphasizing fluidity, multiplicity of meanings, and the instability of language and structures.	Explored through works like Mark Seem’s article on antiliterature influenced by Deleuze and Foucault (Culler, 877).
Literary Theory	The study of methods, principles, and tools for interpreting texts, incorporating diverse perspectives like psychoanalysis, Marxism, and feminism.	Became the focal point of New Literary History, moving away from its initial focus on literary history (Culler, 872-873).
Hermeneutics	The theory and methodology of interpretation, particularly of texts.	Exemplified in Paul Ricoeur’s essay, which positions textual interpretation as central to understanding social sciences (876).
Feminism	A theoretical lens that examines gender inequalities and promotes understanding of women’s roles and representation in literature and society.	Increased prominence in the journal’s later issues, as seen in contributions from feminist scholars (Culler, 874).
Psychoanalysis	A theoretical framework that explores the unconscious mind’s influence on behavior, art, and literature, often referencing Freud and Lacan.	Referenced frequently in the 1993 volumes, marking its integration into literary discourse (Culler, 877).
Narratology	The study of narrative structures and how they affect readers’ understanding and interpretation.	Discussed in Mieke Bal’s article exploring narrative as epistemology (Culler, 878).
Antiliterature	A counter-discourse rejecting traditional forms of continuity, representation, and totality in literature.	Explored by Mark Seem through the lens of French theory, particularly Deleuze and Foucault (Culler, 877).
Interdisciplinarity	The integration of methods and concepts from multiple disciplines (e.g., sociology, history) into literary studies.	Central to the journal’s mission, encouraging articles from diverse fields (Culler, 873).

Contribution of “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

• Advancement of Structuralism
  • New Literary History played a pivotal role in integrating structuralist theories into American literary discourse. The journal featured influential contributions from theorists like Lévi-Strauss and Todorov, who explored structural definitions of literature and myths (Culler, 873-874).
  • Example: Todorov’s essay on the “Notion of Literature” highlighted structuralism’s capacity to question the homogeneity of literary discourse, fostering genre-based analysis (Culler, 876).
• Promotion of Poststructuralism
  • By the 1990s, New Literary History helped mainstream poststructuralist theories, focusing on fluidity, decentralization of meaning, and anti-totality concepts.
  • Example: Mark Seem’s article “Liberation of Difference” theorized counterdiscourses and explored poststructuralist ideas rooted in Deleuze and Foucault’s works (Culler, 877).
• Incorporation of Psychoanalytic Criticism
  • The journal integrated Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis as critical frameworks, especially in the 1990s volumes.
  • Example: References to Lacan, Kristeva, and Irigaray became frequent in exploring identity, subjectivity, and unconscious dynamics in literary texts (Culler, 877).
• Expansion of Feminist Literary Theory
  • Contributions by feminist scholars in the 1993 volumes signified a broader acceptance of feminist theoretical approaches.
  • Example: The increased presence of women contributors and articles on gender and feminist critique enriched the theoretical landscape of literary studies (Culler, 874).
• Narratology as an Interdisciplinary Tool
  • The journal fostered innovative uses of narratology beyond literature, framing it as a tool for understanding knowledge production in social sciences.
  • Example: Mieke Bal’s essay “Narrative as Epistemology” demonstrated how narratological methods could address interdisciplinary epistemological issues (Culler, 878).
• Critique of Traditional Literary History
  • While initially aiming to revitalize literary history, New Literary History pivoted towards critical theory and interdisciplinarity. This shift redefined how literary history is approached, often rejecting traditional linear narratives (Culler, 872).
• Bridging American and European Theory
  • The journal became a mediator between European theoretical paradigms (e.g., structuralism, poststructuralism) and American literary criticism, fostering intellectual cross-pollination.
  • Example: Articles juxtaposed European theorists like Ricoeur and Lévi-Strauss with American scholars, enabling theoretical synthesis (Culler, 873).
• Development of Interdisciplinarity
  • New Literary History encouraged the convergence of literary studies with sociology, linguistics, and history, promoting methodological innovation.
  • Example: Theoretical frameworks from social sciences were adapted to explore literature’s evolving role (Culler, 873-874).

Examples of Critiques Through “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique/Analysis	Theoretical Framework	Reference/Context in Article
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë	Frank Kermode situates the novel within the context of European theory, particularly Wolfgang Iser’s ideas on indeterminacies in texts and Roland Barthes’s narrative plurality. Kermode embraces pluralism but resists Barthes’s extreme views on textual naivety and plurality by accident.	Reader-response theory and structuralist critique.	Culler highlights Kermode’s nuanced reading of Brontë’s work (Culler, 875).
Rousseau’s Works	Peter Brooks draws on Derrida’s treatment of Rousseau to explore themes of speech, writing, and gesture. The analysis reconfigures muteness as a type of signifying practice rather than a mere theme.	Poststructuralism, particularly Derrida’s deconstruction.	Brooks’s essay “The Text of Muteness” is discussed as an example (Culler, 874).
Proust’s and Beckett’s Works	Mark Seem discusses these works as examples of antiliterature, rejecting traditional continuity and representation. Their discourse exemplifies nomadic anarchy and production of difference, aligning with Deleuzian ideas.	Poststructuralism, particularly Deleuze and Foucault’s theories of difference and counterdiscourses.	Seem’s essay “Liberation of Difference: Toward a Theory of Antiliterature” (Culler, 877).
Myths and Folklore	Lévi-Strauss analyzes myths, focusing on how structural transformations cause myths to die or attenuate over time. This structuralist analysis highlights underlying patterns in cultural narratives.	Structuralism, specifically Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology.	Culler refers to Lévi-Strauss’s article “How Myths Die” (Culler, 876).

Criticism Against “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on European Theories
  • Critics argue that the article disproportionately highlights European theoretical frameworks like structuralism and poststructuralism, sidelining other global or indigenous theoretical contributions.
• Neglect of Practical Literary History
  • While the journal’s initial goal was to revitalize literary history, critics contend that it drifted towards abstract theoretical discourse, neglecting the practical reconstruction of literary histories (Culler, 872).
• Lack of Coherence in Theoretical Focus
  • The article highlights the journal’s shift from focused discussions on poetics to a broader and more fragmented range of topics, leading to a perceived lack of coherence in later issues (Culler, 873).
• Underrepresentation of Non-Western Perspectives
  • Despite increased diversity in contributors by 1993, the article itself does not sufficiently critique the Eurocentric dominance in the journal’s earlier years or its limited engagement with non-Western literary traditions (Culler, 874).
• Minimal Critical Engagement with Theories
  • The article tends to describe the journal’s contributions to literary theory without critically assessing the limitations or potential drawbacks of the theoretical paradigms discussed.
• Overreliance on Editorial Vision
  • The article credits much of the journal’s trajectory to Ralph Cohen’s editorial leadership, which critics might see as limiting the scope of collective scholarly influence (Culler, 878).
• Ambiguity in Defining “Theory”
  • Culler uses the term “theory” broadly, leading to potential ambiguities about what constitutes theory versus literary history or criticism in the context of the journal.
• Focus on Institutional Backing
  • Critics may find the emphasis on institutional and financial aspects (e.g., university funding for journals) distracting from the core intellectual contributions of the journal (Culler, 872).

Representative Quotations from “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation	Reference
“Journals may be decisive for the development of a critical movement, even though there is another level at which books remain decisive for criticism in general.”	Highlights the dual role of journals and books, with journals fostering innovation and books offering enduring frameworks for literary criticism.	Culler, 870
“The New Criticism originated as an argument about the nature of poetry in T. S. Eliot’s The Sacred Wood (1920), but also as a challenge to the historical scholarship in several new quarterlies.”	Contextualizes the emergence of New Criticism, emphasizing how journals served as platforms for theoretical debates and innovation in literary studies.	Culler, 870
“The hoped-for renovation of literary history did not occur in its pages, and the journal found itself increasingly focused on literary theory in general.”	Critiques the shift in New Literary History away from its initial goal of revitalizing literary history toward a broader focus on theoretical discussions.	Culler, 872
“European theory in this volume means several things: primarily, perhaps, the sort of poetics encouraged by French structuralism.”	Emphasizes the significant influence of French structuralist poetics as a central framework within New Literary History’s early theoretical focus.	Culler, 874
“Structuralism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics were juxtaposed with essays by American critics who were drawing on European theory.”	Highlights the journal’s bridging role, juxtaposing European theoretical paradigms with American literary scholarship to foster interdisciplinary discourse.	Culler, 874
“New Literary History quickly became a major forum for the discussion and assimilation of foreign work, though this had not seemed its original goal.”	Notes the evolution of the journal into a platform for global theoretical exchange, particularly emphasizing its role in assimilating European influences.	Culler, 872
“In the 1990s, European theory meant something other than poetics and affiliated projects; French psychoanalytic theory was now taken for granted as a resource.”	Reflects the journal’s expanding theoretical scope, particularly its integration of psychoanalytic frameworks into literary and cultural studies.	Culler, 877
“The turn to history came not in the pages of New Literary History but in Representations … analyzing nonliterary discourses of the past alongside literature.”	Contrasts the theoretical focus of New Literary History with the historical and interdisciplinary approach of other journals like Representations.	Culler, 875
“What has happened to literary and cultural theory is that people teaching in literature departments may be working on film and popular culture … without referring to literary works at all.”	Critiques the broadening scope of literary studies, where theoretical frameworks often transcend traditional literary texts, focusing on popular culture and other disciplines.	Culler, 873
“Perhaps the time has come for another revision of the invitation to contributors.”	Suggests a need for New Literary History to redefine its editorial goals to better align with its evolving theoretical and interdisciplinary focus.	Culler, 873

Suggested Readings: “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

1. 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.
2. Culler, Jonathan. “New Literary History and European Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 25, no. 4, 1994, pp. 869–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469379. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
3. Williams, Jeffrey J. “The Rise of the Theory Journal.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 683–702. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666435. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.