“Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield

“Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield was first published in 1992 as part of the influential collection “Faultlines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident Reading.” This essay has significantly impacted the fields of literature and literary theory by challenging traditional approaches to reading and analyzing texts. Sinfield argues for a more politically conscious and socially engaged interpretation, focusing on how literary works can resist dominant ideologies and promote marginalized voices. His work has been instrumental in shaping the development of cultural materialism and new historicism, inspiring scholars to explore the intersections between literature, culture, and power.

Summary of “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield

1. Interinvolvement of Resistance and Control: Sinfield argues that dissidence in literature is inextricably linked to the dominant structures it seeks to challenge. To oppose these structures, dissidence must reference them, leading to a complex relationship where resistance and control are mutually dependent. This interinvolvement arises from the way language and culture are articulated, with every utterance shaped by the possibilities and limitations imposed by the dominant discourse. As a result, dissidence often inadvertently reinscribes the very norms it seeks to critique.
2. Dissidence and the Dominant: Dissident texts gain their power from engaging with the dominant discourse, often appropriating its concepts and imagery to challenge prevailing norms. This engagement allows dissidence to undermine the dominant from within, using its language and categories against it. Sinfield notes that dissident texts, by partially implicating themselves with the dominant, can embarrass and subvert the status quo, as seen in historical examples where marginalized groups used the vocabulary of their oppressors to assert their legitimacy and challenge their marginalization.
3. Role of Historical Context in Literary Criticism: Sinfield emphasizes that the effectiveness of dissidence or incorporation within a text is not determined by the text’s inherent qualities but by the historical context in which it is received. The balance of power at a particular historical moment influences whether dissidence succeeds or is contained. He argues that literary criticism must take into account these historical conditions, as they are decisive in determining the impact of a text. This perspective challenges the notion that texts have intrinsic subversive qualities, suggesting instead that their potential for resistance is context-dependent.
4. Challenges to Traditional Literary Criticism: Traditional literary criticism, which seeks to impose coherence and unity on texts, can inadvertently reinforce regressive ideologies by aligning with dominant cultural norms. Sinfield critiques this approach, arguing that it often overlooks the contested nature of texts and fails to account for the ways in which they engage with broader cultural and historical forces. He advocates for a cultural materialist approach that recognizes the inherently political nature of literary interpretation and the need to consider the social and historical contexts in which texts are produced and read.
5. Dissidence vs. Subversion: Sinfield distinguishes between “dissidence” and “subversion,” preferring the former term because it suggests an ongoing refusal of dominant norms without assuming a definitive overthrow. Dissidence represents a continuous struggle, where the outcome is never guaranteed and depends on the specific historical and cultural context. This ongoing contest, Sinfield argues, is more reflective of the real dynamics of cultural resistance than the term “subversion,” which implies a completed act of overthrow that rarely occurs.
6. Implications for Shakespearean Criticism: Sinfield extends his analysis to Shakespearean criticism, arguing that Shakespeare’s plays, like all cultural texts, are part of an ongoing contest of stories that shape and reflect societal norms. These plays, depending on how they are read and interpreted, can either reinforce or challenge prevailing notions of the world. Sinfield suggests that the cultural impact of Shakespeare’s works is not fixed but varies according to the historical and cultural contexts in which they are engaged.
7. The Limits of Textual Control: Both dissident and dominant texts are limited in their ability to control meaning. Sinfield argues that readers can draw unintended interpretations, which undermines the idea that any text can fully dictate its meaning. This unpredictability reveals that textual meaning is contingent on the interplay of various cultural forces, rather than being a fixed or intrinsic quality of the text itself. Dissident texts, therefore, cannot guarantee that their subversive intentions will be realized, just as dominant texts cannot ensure that they will fully contain or neutralize resistance.
8. Cultural Materialism and the Challenge to Criticism: Sinfield advocates for cultural materialism as a necessary challenge to traditional literary criticism, which he argues is often limited by its focus on textual coherence and interpretive unity. Cultural materialism, by contrast, emphasizes the importance of understanding texts within their specific historical and social contexts, requiring knowledge and approaches that traditional literary criticism may lack. This approach, Sinfield argues, is essential for uncovering the full cultural and political significance of literary texts, and for resisting the tendency of criticism to reinforce dominant ideologies.
9. Text as a Site of Contest: Finally, Sinfield concludes that texts should be understood as sites of cultural contest, where meaning is always negotiated and never fully determined by the text alone. This view challenges the traditional critical notion that meaning can be deduced entirely from the text itself. Instead, Sinfield argues that texts are always engaged in a broader cultural struggle, and their meanings are shaped by the ongoing interactions between different cultural forces, making them dynamic rather than static entities.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield

Term	Explanation
Dissidence	A refusal of an aspect of the dominant ideology or culture, without necessarily implying a successful subversion.
Dominant Structures	The prevailing ideologies, social norms, and power relations in a society.
Cultural Materialism	A theoretical approach that emphasizes the relationship between literature and its historical and social context, focusing on power, ideology, and class.
New Historicism	A theoretical approach that views literary texts as products of their historical and cultural contexts, emphasizing the interrelationship between the text and the world it represents.
Interinvolvement of Resistance and Control	The idea that resistance to dominant structures is always intertwined with those structures, as any act of resistance must necessarily reference and engage with them.
Power Relations	The distribution of power and authority within a society, including the ways in which power is exercised and resisted.
Subordinate	A person or group that is subject to the power and control of others.
Dominant Discourse	The prevailing ways of speaking and thinking about a particular subject or issue.
Reverse Discourse	A discourse that challenges the dominant discourse and offers alternative perspectives.
Incorporation	The process by which dissenting voices or ideas are absorbed or co-opted by the dominant culture.
Resistance	The act of opposing or challenging dominant structures and ideologies.
Entrapment Model	A theoretical perspective that suggests that resistance is ultimately contained or neutralized by dominant power structures.
Cultural Contest	The ongoing struggle between different cultural perspectives and ideologies.
Historical Specificity	The importance of considering the specific historical context in which a literary text was produced and received.
Plausibility	The degree to which a literary text seems believable or realistic within its historical and cultural context.
Coherence	The degree to which a literary text is unified and consistent in its meaning and structure.
Socialization	The process of learning and internalizing the norms, values, and beliefs of a society.

Contribution of “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield

Literary Work	Critique Based on “Reading Dissidence”
Shakespeare’s Othello	The play’s portrayal of Othello as a gullible and passionate figure can be seen as reinforcing stereotypes about black men. Additionally, Desdemona’s submissive nature can be interpreted as a reinforcement of patriarchal norms.
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice	Austen’s depiction of marriage as the ultimate goal for women can be criticized as reinforcing traditional gender roles and expectations. Furthermore, the novel’s focus on class and social status can be seen as perpetuating a hierarchical social structure.
Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist	Dickens’ portrayal of poverty and crime can be seen as reinforcing the idea that the poor are responsible for their own misfortunes. Additionally, the novel’s sentimental tone and emphasis on individual morality can be criticized for overlooking the systemic causes of social problems.
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s exploration of consciousness and subjectivity can be seen as challenging traditional narrative structures and offering a more fragmented and subjective perspective. However, the novel’s focus on the experiences of middle-class women can be criticized for limiting its scope and failing to address broader social issues.

Criticism Against “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield

• Overemphasis on Dominant Structures: Sinfield’s approach can sometimes prioritize the analysis of dominant structures over the nuances and complexities of individual texts.
• Reductionist View of Texts: Some critics argue that Sinfield’s framework can reduce literary works to mere reflections of social and political power dynamics, neglecting their aesthetic and artistic qualities.
• Limited Attention to Subjectivity and Agency: While Sinfield emphasizes the role of power and ideology, he may sometimes overlook the agency of individuals and their ability to resist or subvert dominant structures.
• Overreliance on Historical Context: Sinfield’s focus on historical context can sometimes lead to a neglect of the text’s internal dynamics and its ability to transcend its specific historical moment.
• Difficulty in Applying the Framework: Some critics find it challenging to apply Sinfield’s framework to a wide range of texts, particularly those that do not explicitly address social or political issues.
• Potential for Oversimplification: The emphasis on dominant structures and power relations can sometimes lead to oversimplified or reductive interpretations of literary works.
• Limited Attention to Other Theoretical Approaches: Sinfield’s framework, while valuable, may not adequately account for other theoretical perspectives that can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of literary texts.

Suggested Readings: “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield

1. Dollimore, Jonathan, and Alan Sinfield, eds. Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism. 2nd ed., Manchester University Press, 1994.
2. Sinfield, Alan. Faultlines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident Reading. Clarendon Press, 1992.
3. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.
4. Dollimore, Jonathan. Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries. 3rd ed., Duke University Press, 2004.
5. Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. University of Chicago Press, 1980.
6. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981.
7. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1. Translated by Robert Hurley, Vintage Books, 1990.
8. Brannigan, John. New Historicism and Cultural Materialism. Macmillan, 1998.

Representative Quotations from “Reading Dissidence” by Alan Sinfield with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Dissidence operates, necessarily, with reference to dominant structures.”	Dissident texts must engage with and challenge existing power structures in order to be effective.
“Power relations are always two-way.”	Resistance and control are interconnected, and both parties in a power relationship exert some degree of influence.
“Any utterance is bounded by the other utterances that the language makes possible.”	Language shapes our understanding of the world and limits the possibilities for expression.
“All stories comprise within themselves the ghosts of the alternative stories they are trying to exclude.”	Texts often contain implicit or suppressed narratives that challenge their dominant message.
“There is no ‘great Refusal.'”	Resistance to dominant power structures is not a singular, unified act but rather a series of dispersed and varied actions.
“A dissident text may derive its leverage, its purchase, precisely from its partial implication with the dominant.”	Dissident texts can be effective by appropriating and subverting the language and concepts of the dominant culture.
“Readers do not have to respect closures.”	Readers are not limited to the intended meanings of a text but can interpret it in their own ways.
“There can be no security in textuality.”	The meaning of a text is not fixed but is subject to multiple interpretations and contestations.
“The historical conditions in which it is being deployed are decisive.”	The historical context of a text is crucial for understanding its meaning and significance.
“The text is always a site of cultural contest.”	Texts are not simply passive objects but are actively engaged in shaping and contesting cultural meanings.