“Professing The Renaissance: The Poetics And Politics Of Culture” By Louis A. Montrose: Summary and Critique

• Emergence of New Historicism in Renaissance Studies

• Renaissance studies have seen a shift towards examining the historical, social, and political conditions influencing literary production. This approach challenges the traditional view of literature as an autonomous aesthetic activity.
• Montrose highlights this shift: “The writing and reading of texts, as well as the processes by which they are circulated and categorized, analyzed and taught, are being reconstrued as historically determined and determining modes of cultural work.”
• Interplay Between Literature and Social Contexts

• New Historicism repositions literary works within their socio-cultural contexts, considering the influence of social institutions and non-discursive practices on literary production.
• This approach reorients the focus from a purely textual analysis to understanding texts as part of a broader cultural system, as Montrose notes: “The axis of inter-textuality, substituting for the diachronic text of an autonomous literary history the synchronic text of a cultural system.”
• Rejection of Traditional Interpretations

• The traditional approach to Renaissance literature, which focused on formalist analysis and self-contained histories of ideas, is criticized for its abstraction from social contexts. Montrose argues against this by stating that New Historicism resists “unproblematized distinctions between ‘literature’ and ‘history,’ between ‘text’ and ‘context.'”
• This new approach refuses to treat literary works as separate from the socio-political environment in which they were created.
• Challenges and Complexities of New Historicism

• Montrose discusses the complex issues that New Historicism confronts, including the relationship between cultural practices and social processes, and the impact of post-structuralist theories on historical criticism.
• He emphasizes that New Historicism is not about providing definitive answers but about engaging with these issues: “The term ‘New Historicism’ is currently being invoked in order to bring such issues into play and to stake out…specific positions within the discursive spaces mapped by these issues.”
• Historicity of Texts and Textuality of History

• Montrose introduces the idea that texts are historically specific and socially embedded, and that history itself is mediated through texts. This notion challenges the possibility of accessing an “authentic” past without the mediation of texts.
• He articulates this concept: “We can have no access to a full and authentic past, a lived material existence, unmediated by the surviving textual traces of the society in question.”
• New Socio-Historical Criticism

• The goal of New Historicism is to analyze the interaction of culture-specific discursive practices, recognizing that such analysis is also a cultural practice influenced by its historical and social context.
• Montrose calls for a recognition of the historian’s role in shaping history: “The histories we reconstruct are the textual constructs of critics who are, ourselves, historical subjects.”
• Continuous Dialogue Between Poetics and Politics

• Montrose concludes that historical criticism today must acknowledge the critic’s own historical context and the dynamic relationship between past and present. This ongoing dialogue shapes both the interpretation of Renaissance texts and contemporary understanding of history.
• He summarizes this approach: “Such a critical practice constitutes a continuous dialogue between a poetics and a politics of culture.”

New Historicism:

• Historical Contextualization: Montrose’s essay emphasized the importance of examining literary texts within their specific historical and cultural contexts, challenging the traditional focus on autonomous literary works.
• Interconnectedness of Text and Context: He argued that texts are not merely products of individual genius but are deeply embedded in the social and political structures of their time.
• Deconstruction of Authorial Authority: Montrose questioned the notion of the author as a unified, autonomous individual, instead focusing on the social and cultural factors that shaped their writing.

Cultural Materialism:

• Material Conditions and Social Practices: Montrose’s work highlighted the influence of material conditions and social practices on literary production and reception, aligning with the core tenets of Cultural Materialism.
• Power and Ideology: He explored the ways in which literature can be used to reinforce or challenge dominant ideologies and power structures.
• Resistance and Subversion: Montrose examined how literary texts can be sites of resistance and subversion against oppressive social and political forces.

Intertextuality:

• Interconnectedness of Texts: Montrose’s essay explored the interconnectedness of literary texts, emphasizing their relationship to other genres, modes of discourse, and social institutions.
• Cultural System: He argued that texts are part of a larger cultural system, and their meaning is shaped by their relationship to other texts within that system.

Cultural Studies:

• Interdisciplinary Approach: Montrose’s work embraced an interdisciplinary approach to literary studies, incorporating insights from history, sociology, anthropology, and other fields.
• Power and Representation: He examined the ways in which literature is involved in the production and circulation of power and knowledge.
• Subjectivity and Agency: Montrose explored the ways in which individuals are shaped by social and cultural forces, while also possessing agency to resist or challenge these forces.

Post-Structuralism:

• Deconstruction of Authorial Authority: Montrose’s critique of the author as a unified, autonomous individual aligns with post-structuralist theories that challenge the concept of the author.
• Language and Meaning: He explored the ways in which language and meaning are socially and historically constructed, challenging the notion of a fixed or stable meaning.
• Deconstruction of Binary Oppositions: Montrose questioned the binary oppositions that have traditionally dominated literary criticism, such as literature versus history or high culture versus popular culture.