Theory Article Summaries Archives - Page 14 of 59

“The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams: Summary and Critique

“The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams first appeared in Narrative in January 1996 (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 17–35), published by Ohio State University Press.

Introduction: “The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams

“The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams first appeared in Narrative in January 1996 (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 17–35), published by Ohio State University Press. This seminal essay reflects on the institutional trajectory and the perceived decline of deconstruction within literary studies, contextualizing it as part of broader shifts in literary theory. Williams employs a narrative framework to examine the rise and fall of deconstruction, using metaphors like tragedy and conspiracy to explore its legacy. The work critically investigates how deconstruction’s prominence was intertwined with academic structures and cultural moments, arguing that the narrative of its “death” is more about institutional shifts and professional reconfigurations than intellectual obsolescence. This essay remains vital in literary theory for its analysis of the “theory market” and its critique of how academic disciplines construct and legitimize theoretical paradigms over time.

Summary of “The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams

Deconstruction’s Rise and Fall in Literary Studies
Deconstruction, initially heralded as a transformative intellectual movement in the late 20th century, experienced a rise to prominence in the 1970s and early 1980s as a dominant critical paradigm. This ascendancy was marked by its association with prominent figures like Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man and its institutional stronghold at Yale University. However, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, the “death” of deconstruction was proclaimed, evidenced by declining interest in its theories within academic literature departments (Williams, 1996, p. 18).
Narrative Framing of Deconstruction’s History
Williams illustrates that deconstruction’s history is often presented through the lens of narrative tropes such as tragedy, conspiracy, and natural decline. The movement’s trajectory has been likened to a rise-and-fall tragedy, epitomized by de Man’s scandal involving his wartime writings. This framing reflects how intellectual movements are often mythologized to fit a coherent narrative (p. 19-21).

Institutional Dynamics and Market Forces
The decline of deconstruction is attributed not solely to theoretical exhaustion but to institutional and professional forces. Literary studies’ reliance on “newness” and disciplinary regeneration encouraged a shift toward other movements, such as new historicism and cultural studies. This shift is described as a natural reconfiguration of the academic “theory market” (p. 27-29).
Impact of Deconstruction on Contemporary Criticism
Despite its purported “death,” deconstruction’s influence persists in critical theory and practice. Key concepts such as différance, supplementation, and the critique of binary oppositions continue to underpin various contemporary approaches, including postcolonialism, gender studies, and identity studies (p. 22-23).
Cultural and Political Implications
Williams contextualizes the “end of deconstruction” within broader cultural and political movements. The decline is framed as part of a reaction against perceived elitism and abstraction in the humanities, aligning with pressures to prioritize more accessible and socially relevant methodologies (p. 25-26).

Narrative Power and Disciplinary Legitimacy
The death narrative serves as a rhetorical tool to legitimize emerging critical paradigms. By emphasizing the “end” of deconstruction, proponents of new movements position their approaches as innovative and essential for the discipline’s progression (p. 29).
Challenges to the Finality of Deconstruction’s Decline
Williams challenges the notion of a definitive end to deconstruction. He argues that the movement’s integration into the broader lexicon of critical theory suggests its ongoing relevance, albeit in a transformed and diffused state. The claims of its demise are as much performative as they are reflective of substantive intellectual shifts (p. 31).
Interrelation with Broader Theoretical Trends
The decline of deconstruction parallels broader critiques of “Grand Theory” in the humanities, which once encompassed frameworks like Marxism, feminism, and psychoanalysis. These critiques advocate for localized, historically grounded approaches, reflecting a broader disciplinary transition (p. 24).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams

Theoretical Term/Concept	Description	Context in the Article
Deconstruction	A critical theory emphasizing the instability of meaning and the critique of binary oppositions.	Central focus; its rise and fall are analyzed through institutional, cultural, and historical narratives.
Différance	Derrida’s term for the process by which meaning is deferred and differentiated in language.	Highlighted as one of the enduring concepts that shaped literary and cultural studies despite the “death” of deconstruction.
Supplementarity	The idea that structures are never complete and depend on external additions to function.	Examined as a key concept adopted into other critical practices like postcolonial and identity studies.
Institutionalization of Theory	The process by which theories gain legitimacy and dominance within academic institutions.	Discussed in relation to deconstruction’s peak and subsequent decline as part of the theory “market.”
Theory Market	A metaphor for the academic economy where theories gain or lose prominence.	Used to explain the shift from deconstruction to new historicism and cultural studies.
Grand Theory	A term encompassing major theoretical frameworks like Marxism, feminism, and psychoanalysis.	Contrasted with newer, localized, and historically focused approaches in contemporary literary studies.
Cultural Studies	An interdisciplinary field analyzing cultural practices and power dynamics.	Positioned as one of the movements replacing deconstruction in literary studies.
Identity Studies	Critical studies focusing on race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity.	Cited as an area influenced by deconstruction, particularly its critique of binary oppositions.
Narrativization	The process of framing intellectual movements through coherent stories and tropes.	Central to Williams’ argument that the “death of deconstruction” is as much a narrative as a reflection of reality.
Post-Theory	The perceived phase after the decline of “high theory,” emphasizing more practical approaches.	Explored as a reaction against the abstraction of deconstruction and other Grand Theories.
Close Reading	A method of literary analysis focusing on detailed textual interpretation.	Noted as a foundation for deconstruction’s initial success in literary studies.
Critical Lexicon	The set of terms and concepts used within a particular critical framework.	Deconstruction’s terms, such as différance and center/margin, are described as deeply integrated into contemporary theory.
Field-Coverage Principle	An administrative model where academic departments hire specialists in various approaches.	Explains the decline of deconstruction due to limited job slots for “theory specialists.”
The Fall of Deconstruction	The narrative framing of deconstruction’s decline as inevitable or natural.	Critiqued by Williams as reductive and influenced by institutional pressures and broader cultural shifts.
Rumor and Spectrality	The influence of unofficial narratives and the persistent “ghost” of deconstruction.	Used to describe how deconstruction continues to influence the field despite its proclaimed death.

Contribution of “The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critical Narrativization of Theory

Williams underscores how the rise and fall of deconstruction has been shaped as a narrative, relying on tropes like tragedy, scandal, and conspiracy. By critiquing this narrativization, he reveals how theory is less a logical progression of ideas and more a culturally and institutionally mediated construct (Williams, p. 20). This insight enriches our understanding of how intellectual movements are framed and popularized in academia, showing the performative aspects of theory.

2. Institutional Dynamics in Theory’s Rise and Fall

The article provides a profound exploration of the institutionalization of deconstruction. Williams links its rise to its alignment with dominant academic practices like close reading and its eventual decline to shifts in hiring practices and the “field-coverage principle” in departments (Williams, p. 29). This lens offers a socio-institutional perspective on how theories gain and lose influence within academia.

3. The Theory Market as a Metaphor

Williams introduces the concept of the “theory market,” a metaphor for how theories compete for prominence in academic spaces. He positions deconstruction as a “blue-chip stock” that lost its value due to shifting intellectual trends (Williams, p. 17). This analogy helps conceptualize the lifecycle of theoretical movements, emphasizing external cultural and economic factors in their valuation.

4. Deconstruction’s Enduring Influence

Contrary to claims of its death, Williams argues that deconstruction continues to permeate contemporary criticism through its concepts (e.g., différance, center/margin). He highlights its role in shaping practices like postcolonialism and identity studies, showing its indirect but persistent influence (Williams, p. 22). This challenges reductive narratives of its obsolescence and emphasizes its foundational role in modern critical lexicons.

5. Bridging Grand Theory and Post-Theory

The article examines the transition from “Grand Theory” (e.g., deconstruction, Marxism) to more localized, historical approaches like cultural studies. Williams critiques the oversimplification of this shift as a rupture, suggesting that post-theory practices still draw heavily on deconstruction’s tools and insights (Williams, p. 25). This contribution highlights the continuity between theoretical eras rather than framing them as distinct.

6. The Role of Scandal in Academic Discourse

Williams critically engages with the Paul de Man controversy, arguing that deconstruction’s decline is partly a product of its association with de Man’s scandal (Williams, p. 20). This analysis demonstrates how personal narratives and cultural events can shape the reception and trajectory of intellectual movements, providing a cautionary framework for understanding theory’s vulnerability to external factors.

7. Critique of Historical Determinism in Literary Studies

Williams critiques the tendency to frame deconstruction’s decline as inevitable or natural, likening it to the life-cycle narrative of growth and decay (Williams, p. 21). By challenging this determinism, he calls for a more nuanced understanding of how theories evolve within historical and institutional contexts, enriching the methodological approaches to studying intellectual history.

8. Contribution to Interdisciplinary Critical Practices

Williams situates deconstruction as a precursor to interdisciplinary approaches like cultural and identity studies. He argues that deconstruction’s critiques of binary oppositions and hierarchical structures laid the groundwork for these fields to flourish (Williams, p. 23). This underscores its foundational contribution to expanding the scope of literary and cultural analysis.

9. Reframing the Role of Narrative in Theory

By analyzing how theory itself is subjected to narrative framing, Williams contributes a meta-theoretical critique that is valuable for literary theorists. He demonstrates that the framing of deconstruction’s “death” is not merely descriptive but performative, serving institutional agendas and legitimizing newer approaches (Williams, p. 26). This insight bridges the study of narrative with theoretical self-awareness.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams

Literary Work	Critique Through Williams’ Analysis	Relevance to Theory
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Explored through deconstruction’s focus on the instability of meaning, particularly in Joyce’s fragmented narrative structure (Williams, p. 22).	Deconstruction’s emphasis on différance can critique how Joyce subverts traditional narrative coherence, aligning with Derrida’s linguistic principles.
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	Critiqued through the lens of post-theory practices that deconstruction influenced, such as identity studies and postcolonialism (Williams, p. 23).	The exploration of race, memory, and trauma in Beloved aligns with deconstruction’s challenge to dominant narratives and binary structures.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	Interpreted via the tragic narrative arc, with Hamlet embodying deconstruction’s destabilization of heroism and identity (Williams, p. 20).	Deconstruction’s dismantling of the center-margin hierarchy can unpack Hamlet’s oscillation between action and introspection, showing narrative gaps.
Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre	Viewed through cultural studies influenced by deconstruction, focusing on colonial critiques (e.g., Bertha Mason’s marginalization) (Williams, p. 23).	Deconstruction’s challenge to fixed identities aids in critiquing imperialism and gender roles embedded in the text, aligning with postcolonial discourse.

Criticism Against “The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams

Over-reliance on Narrative Tropes
Williams’ framing of deconstruction’s history as a screenplay-like narrative has been criticized for oversimplifying complex theoretical movements. Critics argue that reducing deconstruction to a “rise and fall” storyline diminishes the nuance of its philosophical and institutional transformations.
Insufficient Engagement with Derrida’s Philosophy
While the article discusses deconstruction’s institutional trajectory in the U.S., it does not sufficiently engage with Jacques Derrida’s foundational concepts, such as différance and the critique of logocentrism. This focus on institutional narratives overlooks key philosophical debates central to deconstruction.
Bias Toward Institutional Narratives
Some scholars argue that Williams overly emphasizes the institutional dynamics of deconstruction at the expense of its intellectual contributions. His framing may reflect more on academia’s disciplinary shifts than on the theoretical vitality of deconstruction itself.

Neglect of Non-Literary Applications
The article largely confines deconstruction to literary studies, neglecting its broader applications in fields like law, psychoanalysis, and political theory. This narrow focus could lead to an incomplete picture of deconstruction’s ongoing relevance.
Lack of Representation for Contemporary Developments
Williams’ discussion does not adequately address how deconstruction continues to evolve in fields like queer theory, postcolonial studies, and new materialism. By portraying deconstruction as outdated, the article risks underestimating its enduring adaptability.
Overemphasis on Paul de Man’s Scandal
Critics argue that Williams’ focus on the Paul de Man controversy unfairly centralizes de Man as the emblem of deconstruction’s demise. This focus risks conflating deconstruction’s intellectual contributions with the personal failings of one of its practitioners.

Limited Engagement with Global Perspectives
The analysis is heavily centered on the American academic context, overlooking how deconstruction has been interpreted and utilized in non-Western intellectual traditions. This lack of global perspective limits the scope of the critique.

Representative Quotations from “The Death of Deconstruction, the End of Theory, and Other Ominous Rumors” by Jeffrey Williams with Explanation

“Deconstruction fell from its predominant position on the theory market, a position it had gained, not without a great deal of debate and controversy, through the 1970s and early 1980s.”
Explanation: Williams highlights how deconstruction, once dominant in literary studies, experienced a decline. He uses the metaphor of a “theory market” to emphasize its competitive and fluctuating institutional standing.
“The generally accepted story of deconstruction invokes or plays off a number of interrelated and typical narrative tropes or plots, including that of a tragedy (a rise and fall), a career (and retirement), a natural growth (and wane), a life-cycle (and death), and a conspiracy (and scandal).”
Explanation: This illustrates Williams’ argument that deconstruction’s decline has been mythologized through familiar narrative structures, shaping how its history is perceived.

“Paul de Man provides all the elements of a tragic hero: a rise to a powerful position … and a precipitous fall.”
Explanation: Williams frames Paul de Man as a central figure whose career mirrors a tragic arc, encapsulating the broader narrative of deconstruction’s rise and fall.
“Rumors about the death of deconstruction, however, have always already been exaggerated.”
Explanation: By referencing Barbara Johnson’s quip, Williams critiques the premature declarations of deconstruction’s demise, suggesting its ongoing relevance despite its supposed decline.
“Deconstruction was once new, cutting edge, avant-garde, but it no longer serves that function.”
Explanation: This reflects on the transient nature of academic trends, where once-revolutionary theories become institutionalized and lose their innovative appeal.

“Rather than a precipitous fall, this alternative strand taps into a plot of career and retirement on the one hand, and one of growth and exhaustion on the other.”
Explanation: Williams explores alternative metaphors for deconstruction’s trajectory, contrasting the drama of its fall with the natural life-cycle of intellectual movements.
“The story of deconstruction at the same time invokes another narrative chain, which casts the story in more naturalistic or developmental plot forms.”
Explanation: This stresses how narratives about deconstruction’s decline are constructed, not just as tragedies but as natural progressions or transitions.
“The discourse of deconstruction has deeply and widely marked the scene of criticism and theory.”
Explanation: Williams acknowledges the enduring influence of deconstruction, even as its prominence has waned, in shaping critical discourse.

“Contrary to seeing theory as a logically sequential history of ideas, theorists and critics deal with a set of principles and propositions passed on in a ‘conversation.'”
Explanation: Williams critiques the notion of theory as a linear progression, emphasizing its discursive and collaborative nature within academic contexts.
“The narrative of the death of deconstruction serves an exemplary function, in a significant way providing a kind of synecdoche for the recent changes in literary studies that have come to be grouped under the name of theory.”
Explanation: Williams positions deconstruction’s perceived decline as representative of broader shifts within literary theory, signaling changes in academic priorities and methodologies.

“Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch: Summary and Critique

“Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch first appeared in 2005 in the journal Profession, published by the Modern Language Association.

Introduction: “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch

“Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch first appeared in 2005 in the journal Profession, published by the Modern Language Association. This pivotal essay examines the evolution and perceived decline of literary theory, tracing its trajectory from the mid-20th century’s formalist and structuralist paradigms to the poststructuralist dominance of figures like Derrida and Foucault, and finally to its absorption into the expansive and fragmented field of cultural studies. Leitch explores the multifaceted roles theory has played in academia, from its methodological rigor to its sociopolitical critiques, while addressing critiques of theory’s alleged elitism and commodification. The work is significant for its nuanced analysis of the institutionalization of theory and its implications for the future of humanities scholarship, making it a critical reference point for understanding shifts in literary and cultural discourse over the decades.

Summary of “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch

1. The Proliferation of Literary Theory

The late 20th century marked a renaissance in literary theory, characterized by diverse schools like formalism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, and critical race theory (Leitch, 2005, p. 122).

This intellectual explosion transitioned into cultural studies by the 21st century, subsuming poststructuralism under a broader, fragmented spectrum of subfields like media studies, disability studies, and trauma studies.

2. Diverse Interpretations of Theory

Leitch identifies six distinct meanings of “theory,” ranging from methodological frameworks to sociohistorical constructions (p. 123).

Theory as “grand theory” focuses on structuralism and poststructuralism, while “vernacular theory” adopts pragmatic tools for critique.
Critics have targeted theory’s perceived abstraction, idealism, and commodification, highlighting its contentious reception across ideological lines (p. 124).

3. The Decline and Transformation of High Theory

Announcements of theory’s “end” reflect shifts in intellectual priorities, moving from structuralism’s dominance to the rise of cultural studies (p. 125).
Despite claims of decline, elements of high theory—like deconstructive strategies and interdisciplinary critique—persist, albeit in adapted forms (p. 125).

4. Theory as Historical and Contextual

Theory evolves with cultural and academic climates, from Enlightenment-era ideals to postmodern critiques of autonomy and neoliberal influences (p. 126).
It mirrors broader societal changes, including globalization, disaggregation of disciplines, and market-driven academic structures (p. 127).

5. Institutionalization and Market Forces

The 1980s and 1990s saw a surge in demand for theorists in academia, but recent decades have shifted focus to practical applications in research and teaching (p. 127).
Theory’s institutional entrenchment ensures its persistence, even as its influence decentralizes into interdisciplinary domains (p. 127).

6. Theory in a Postmodern Context

The transformation from “high theory” to “vernacular theory” reflects theory’s responsiveness to socio-political and economic conditions (p. 128).
The commodification of theory as a niche market is both a symptom of and a response to late-capitalist academic frameworks (p. 128).

7. The Future of Theory

Questions about the future of theory hinge on its role in education and its integration into interdisciplinary studies (p. 128).
Even in decline, theory’s adaptability positions it as a ghostly, ever-evolving force in academia, re-emerging in unexpected ways (p. 128).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference in Article
Grand Theory	Refers to high-level theoretical frameworks like structuralism and poststructuralism (e.g., Derrida, Lacan).	Leitch (2005), p. 124.
Vernacular Theory	Pragmatic and adaptable tools used for specific critiques, often in applied or interdisciplinary contexts.	Leitch (2005), p. 124.
Poststructuralism	A dominant theoretical approach of the late 20th century, emphasizing deconstruction and critique of binaries.	Leitch (2005), p. 123.
Cultural Studies	An interdisciplinary field that absorbed and replaced poststructuralism, focusing on diverse subfields like media, trauma, and performance studies.	Leitch (2005), pp. 122–123.
Anti-Theory	A critique of theory, opposing its abstraction and perceived elitism, often associated with conservative scholars.	Leitch (2005), p. 123.
Interdisciplinary Writing	A mode of discourse that combines literature, philosophy, sociology, and politics, breaking traditional disciplinary boundaries.	Leitch (2005), p. 124.
Professional Common Sense	The unspoken theoretical assumptions held by specialists in literary and cultural studies.	Leitch (2005), p. 123.
Postmodern Discourse	A cross-disciplinary pastiche associated with postmodernism, critiqued for undermining academic discipline autonomy.	Leitch (2005), p. 124.
Deconstruction	A methodology from poststructuralism focusing on the critique of binary concepts and revealing contradictions.	Leitch (2005), p. 125.
Institutionalization of Theory	The integration of theory into academic structures, where its methodologies are embedded in research and teaching practices.	Leitch (2005), p. 127.
Marketization of Theory	The commodification of theoretical approaches, influenced by academic trends and job market demands.	Leitch (2005), pp. 127–128.
End-of-Theory Sentiments	The idea that theory, as a unified field, has reached its conclusion, replaced by fragmented and contextual applications.	Leitch (2005), pp. 125–126.

Contribution of “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critique of Poststructuralism

Leitch examines the decline of poststructuralism’s dominance, arguing that its focus on deconstruction and binary critiques continues to influence theory despite its waning hegemony (Leitch, 2005, p. 125).
He highlights poststructuralism’s evolution into ethics and politics after controversies like Paul de Man’s anti-Semitic writings (p. 125).

2. Integration of Cultural Studies

The essay underscores the role of cultural studies in subsuming poststructuralist frameworks, reflecting a shift toward diverse, interdisciplinary subfields like media studies, body studies, and trauma studies (p. 123).
This integration has reshaped literary theory to encompass broader cultural and sociopolitical concerns.

3. Defense of Interdisciplinary Writing

Leitch celebrates theory’s role in fusing disciplines, blending literary criticism with philosophy, history, and sociology, thereby expanding the boundaries of theoretical discourse (p. 124).
This approach critiques the rigid structures of traditional academic disciplines.

4. Analysis of Theory’s Institutionalization

Leitch highlights how theory has been entrenched in academic structures, influencing hiring, research, and publication practices, thus solidifying its role in shaping scholarly paradigms (p. 127).
This institutionalization ensures the persistence of theoretical methodologies in academia, even amidst claims of its decline.

5. Expansion of Vernacular Theory

The essay contributes to the understanding of “vernacular theory,” emphasizing practical, contingent tools for critique, which contrasts with grand or high theory (p. 124).
Leitch advocates for its adaptability and relevance in applied contexts.

6. Marketization and Commodification of Theory

By examining the commodification of theory, Leitch sheds light on how academic trends and market forces shape the development and dissemination of theoretical frameworks (p. 128).
This critique situates literary theory within broader economic and institutional contexts.

7. Historical Contextualization of Theory

Leitch situates theory within historical and sociopolitical movements, linking its evolution to changes in academic and cultural climates, from the Enlightenment to postmodernism (p. 126).
This historical approach underscores theory’s responsiveness to its temporal and material conditions.

8. Contributions to Post-Theory Debates

The essay engages with “post-theory” debates, challenging notions of theory’s “end” by arguing that theory persists in transformed, fragmented, and recontextualized forms (p. 126).
Leitch asserts that theory adapts to contemporary conditions, such as globalization and neoliberal academic structures.

9. Preservation of Counterhegemonic Agendas

Leitch emphasizes the role of theory in sustaining critiques of discriminatory practices related to race, gender, and other social structures, even in its fragmented state (p. 125).
These counterhegemonic goals remain central to the legacy and future of literary theory.

10. Reflection on Theory’s Future in Academia

The essay raises critical questions about the place of theory in education, its integration into general curricula, and its potential evolution in response to corporatization and interdisciplinary demands (p. 128).
This discussion ensures that theory’s relevance and adaptability are foregrounded in debates about academic priorities.

Examples of Critiques Through “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch

Literary Work	Theoretical Lens from “Theory Ends”	Example of Critique
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad	Poststructuralism and Deconstruction	Through deconstruction, the binaries of civilization/savagery in the novel can be critiqued, exposing the instability of colonialist ideologies (Leitch, 2005, p. 125).
“Wide Sargasso Sea” by Jean Rhys	Postcolonial Theory and Cultural Studies	This work can be analyzed for its critique of imperialist narratives, focusing on race, identity, and the subaltern experience (Leitch, 2005, p. 123).
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Critical Race Theory and Trauma Studies	Morrison’s novel can be explored through trauma studies, focusing on the enduring psychological scars of slavery (Leitch, 2005, pp. 122–123).
“Mrs. Dalloway” by Virginia Woolf	Feminist Theory and Interdisciplinary Writing	Woolf’s representation of gender and mental health can be critiqued within feminist and psychoanalytic frameworks, emphasizing interdisciplinary insights (Leitch, 2005, p. 124).

Criticism Against “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch

1. Overemphasis on Institutionalization

Critics argue that Leitch focuses excessively on the institutionalization of theory, neglecting the grassroots or less formal applications of theory in non-academic spaces.

2. Lack of Specificity in Defining Theory’s “End”

Leitch’s concept of the “end” of theory is criticized for being too vague and expansive, offering no clear criteria for what constitutes the end or transformation of a theoretical paradigm.

3. Fragmentation Dilutes Coherence

Some critics suggest that the essay’s emphasis on the fragmentation of theory into subfields like cultural studies undermines its ability to provide a unified critique or vision for the future of theory.

4. Nostalgia for Grand Theory

Leitch is accused of harboring a nostalgic tone for the era of grand theories, potentially romanticizing their influence and downplaying the value of more localized, practical applications.

5. Limited Engagement with Counter-Theory Movements

The essay briefly mentions counter-theory movements but fails to deeply engage with their critiques, such as hermeneutics or speech-act theory, leaving these perspectives underexplored.

6. Marketization Argument Oversimplified

While Leitch critiques the commodification of theory, some suggest his analysis oversimplifies the complexities of academic market forces and their impact on theory’s evolution.

7. Ambiguity in Theory’s Future

Critics find that Leitch offers limited concrete proposals for the future of theory, leaving questions about its place in academia and its relevance in a corporatized education system unanswered.

8. Overrepresentation of Western Perspectives

The essay is critiqued for focusing predominantly on North American and European developments in theory, marginalizing contributions from other global perspectives and traditions.

9. Insufficient Attention to Contemporary Critiques of Postmodernism

Leitch’s discussion of postmodern discourse does not fully address contemporary critiques of postmodernism, such as its alleged depoliticization or overemphasis on relativism.

Representative Quotations from “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Theory in the current framework has at least a half dozen different meanings.”	Highlights the multiplicity of interpretations and applications of theory, showing its adaptability and fragmentation across different schools and fields.
“Cultural studies annexes various segments and tasks of theory.”	Reflects how cultural studies absorbed traditional theoretical approaches, signaling a shift from high theory to a more interdisciplinary and pragmatic focus.
“The past of theory demonstrates that theory has a future.”	Suggests that while specific schools of theory may decline, theoretical inquiry itself persists and evolves, adapting to new cultural and academic contexts.
“Poststructuralism’s turn to ethics and politics occurred after the revelations of Paul de Man’s writings.”	Connects poststructuralism’s later focus on morality and political critique to a pivotal historical controversy, illustrating how external events influence theoretical evolution.
“The institutionalization of theory explains why it is sometimes regarded as a new orthodoxy.”	Explains the critique that theory has become entrenched in academia, perceived by some as rigid or overly commodified.
“Theory names a historically new, postmodern mode of discourse.”	Highlights theory’s transformation into a cross-disciplinary approach that blends literature, philosophy, sociology, and politics, reflecting postmodernism’s influence.
“End-of-theory sentiments arose very early in the contemporary period.”	Indicates that claims of theory’s demise are not new but recurring, tied to shifts in intellectual and cultural priorities over time.
“Theory reflects its time and, while criticizing or sometimes ignoring, responds to the forces at play.”	Emphasizes theory’s role as both a critique of and a response to contemporary cultural, social, and academic conditions.
“Theory is part of its time.”	A concise reflection on the temporality of theory, suggesting its relevance is tied to specific historical and cultural contexts.
“The critique of binary concepts will no doubt live on.”	Suggests that even as dominant theoretical schools like poststructuralism decline, some of their central methodologies and insights, such as deconstruction, will continue to influence academic discourse.

“Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris: Summary and Critique

Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms? by Gerasimos Kakoliris first appeared in the Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology in October 2004 (Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 283-292).

Introduction: “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms? by Gerasimos Kakoliris first appeared in the Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology in October 2004 (Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 283-292). This essay critically examines Derrida’s concept of “double reading” in deconstruction, highlighting its inherent tension between the stabilizing reproduction of authorial intention in a first reading and its subsequent destabilization through a second reading. Kakoliris argues that Derrida’s methodology necessitates an initial stability to enable deconstruction but simultaneously challenges this very stability through “dissemination,” where meanings proliferate beyond authorial control. This paradox underscores Derrida’s notion of différance, which “renders determinacy both possible and necessary” while ensuring no meaning is fully present or univocal. By analyzing Derrida’s work, Kakoliris critiques the feasibility of reconciling the need for both determination and dissemination, raising pivotal questions about the coherence of deconstructive methodology. As Kakoliris quotes Derrida, “Differance is not indeterminacy… It renders determinacy both possible and necessary,” encapsulating the intricate balance deconstruction seeks but struggles to maintain. This work remains vital in literary theory for its exploration of the philosophical and interpretive implications of Derrida’s theories, especially regarding the interplay between stability and undecidability in textual analysis.

Summary of “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

1. The Concept of Double Reading

Kakoliris examines Jacques Derrida’s method of “double reading,” highlighting the tension between two phases:
- First reading: A reproduction of the authorial or textual intention, referred to as “doubling commentary” (OG 158).
- Second reading: A deconstruction of the meanings established in the first phase, leading to undecidability (Afterword, 143).
Deconstruction situates itself in the gap between what the author consciously intends (vouloir-dire) and the unintended meanings generated by the text (OG 158).

2. The Role of Stability and Instability

Derrida emphasizes that a text’s meaning must initially appear stable to enable deconstruction. He describes this as “relatively stable (and hence destabilizable!)” (Afterword 145).
The paradox lies in how deconstruction destabilizes what it first requires—a stable textual foundation.

3. The Concept of Differance

Differance, Derrida’s neologism, denotes the process of deferring and differing meanings, forming the condition for meaning creation and its disruption (Positions 27).
Kakoliris highlights the dual role of differance: it enables both stability and dissemination of meanings, creating a tension that defines deconstruction (Afterword 149).

4. Undecidability vs. Indeterminacy

Derrida distinguishes undecidability from indeterminacy, arguing that undecidability occurs in the oscillation between defined possibilities, while indeterminacy suggests a lack of determination (Afterword 148-149).
Kakoliris critiques this stance, observing that Derrida’s reliance on undecidability undermines the stability required for the initial phase of reading.

5. Deconstruction’s Dependency on Authorial Intention

While deconstruction critiques metaphysical notions of fixed meaning, it paradoxically relies on stable authorial intention for its initial reading.
Kakoliris notes that Derrida treats authorial intention as univocal during the first phase, disregarding potential multiple interpretations (Afterword 143).

6. The Text’s Resistance to Unity

Kakoliris argues that Derrida’s treatment of texts as unified in intention contradicts his acknowledgment of texts as inherently heterogeneous and fragmented (Violence and Metaphysics, 84).
This selective application of unity preserves deconstruction’s methodology while simultaneously challenging the coherence of its critique.

7. The Central Paradox

Deconstruction must balance its reliance on textual stability with its goal of disseminating meanings into undecidability.
Kakoliris questions whether Derrida’s framework genuinely accommodates both determination and dissemination or simply exploits the ambiguity for methodological convenience (Afterword 144).

8. Contribution to Literary and Philosophical Discourse

Kakoliris positions Derrida’s double reading as central to post-structuralist debates, offering a profound yet contentious framework for interpreting texts.
He underscores the implications for understanding textuality, intention, and the limitations of traditional interpretive methods.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Key Reference from Article
Double Reading	A two-step interpretative process involving a stable reproduction of authorial intention (first reading) and its subsequent deconstruction to reveal undecidability (second reading).	OG 158, Afterword 143
Differance	A neologism coined by Derrida to signify the dual process of deferring and differing meanings, underpinning the creation and destabilization of meaning.	Positions 27, Afterword 149
Doubling Commentary	The first reading in deconstruction that reconstructs the determinate meaning of a text to enable its destabilization later.	OG 158, Afterword 145
Undecidability	The state in which textual meanings oscillate between possibilities, with no definitive resolution, due to the intervention of writing.	Afterword 148-149
Authorial Intention (Vouloir-dire)	The intentional meaning or “what the author wants to say,” which is central to the first phase of reading but subject to critique in deconstruction.	OG 158, Afterword 143
Dissemination	The scattering of meaning beyond univocal authorial control, leading to a proliferation of interpretations.	Dissemination 17
Relatively Stable Meaning	A prerequisite stability required in the first reading to enable the subsequent destabilization in deconstruction.	Afterword 145
Structural Linguistics	Refers to Saussure’s theory that language is a system of arbitrary and differential signs, which Derrida radicalizes with differance.	CLG 166
Metaphysics of Presence	The philosophical tradition critiqued by Derrida for privileging fixed, self-present meanings in texts.	OG 8, Afterword 143
Play	The dynamic interplay of differences that prevents concepts from being fully stable or self-identical.	Afterword 144

Contribution of “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris to Literary Theory/Theories

Clarification of the Double Reading Process
Kakoliris examines Derrida’s “double reading” as a dual process of stabilization and destabilization, offering a clear framework for understanding the methodological tension inherent in deconstructive criticism (OG 158, Afterword 143).
Critique of Authorial Intention as a Stable Basis
The essay challenges the reliance on univocal authorial intention in deconstruction, questioning whether such stability can coexist with Derrida’s claim of undecidability (Afterword 143, Violence and Metaphysics 84).
Exploration of Undecidability and Meaning
It emphasizes the oscillation of meanings between determined possibilities, critiquing the implications of undecidability for literary analysis (Afterword 148-149).

Engagement with Structural Linguistics
By linking Derrida’s differance to Saussure’s theory of differential signs, Kakoliris bridges structuralism and post-structuralism, enriching the theoretical discourse on language and meaning (CLG 166, Positions 27).
Highlighting the Paradox of Stability and Destabilization
Kakoliris underlines the paradox that deconstruction requires stable meanings to destabilize them, questioning its internal coherence as a literary methodology (Afterword 145).
Criticism of the Metaphysics of Presence
The essay reinforces Derrida’s critique of the metaphysics of presence while scrutinizing how deconstruction navigates the problem of textual self-coherence (OG 8, Dissemination 17).

Contribution to Interpretative Practices
By addressing the methodological demands of “doubling commentary,” Kakoliris offers insights into how traditional and critical readings interact in literary interpretation (Afterword 145).
Theoretical Implications of Differance
Kakoliris’s discussion of differance as both enabling and undermining stability deepens the understanding of this central concept in Derrida’s thought (Afterword 149).
Reevaluation of Deconstructive Objectives
The critique prompts literary theorists to reconsider whether deconstruction prioritizes dissemination or determination, highlighting the limitations of its interpretative ambitions (Afterword 144).

Examples of Critiques Through “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Literary Work	Deconstructive Focus	Critique Based on Kakoliris’s Analysis
Plato’s Phaedrus	The double meaning of the term pharmakon as “remedy” and “poison.”	Kakoliris highlights how Derrida demonstrates the text’s inability to privilege one meaning over the other, revealing undecidability despite Plato’s intention to separate meanings. (Dissemination, 17)
Rousseau’s Essay on the Origin of Languages	The relationship between speech and writing as a supplementary structure.	Kakoliris critiques Derrida’s reliance on stable initial interpretations to deconstruct Rousseau’s privileging of speech over writing. (OG lxxxix)
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	The oscillation between Hamlet’s action and inaction as indicative of deferred meaning (a differance).	Kakoliris might interpret Hamlet’s indecision as a site of both stability (in its literary structure) and instability (in its existential meanings).
Joyce’s Ulysses	The play of linguistic signifiers and their refusal to adhere to stable meanings.	Applying Kakoliris’s critique, the text’s semantic excess could be seen as relying on stable narrative structures while simultaneously disrupting them, reflecting the paradox of deconstruction.

Criticism Against “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Overemphasis on the Paradox of Stability and Destabilization
Critics argue that Kakoliris’s focus on the tension between stability and destabilization in Derrida’s double reading overlooks the productive aspects of this paradox, which Derrida himself sees as central to deconstruction.
Neglect of Deconstruction’s Broader Applications
By concentrating primarily on textual undecidability, Kakoliris may underrepresent the ethical and political dimensions of deconstruction that extend beyond the scope of literary theory.
Simplification of Derrida’s Concept of Differance
While engaging deeply with differance, Kakoliris’s critique might simplify its role by treating it as a binary opposition between stability and instability, rather than acknowledging its dynamic interplay of meanings.

Dependence on Traditional Hermeneutics for Critique
Some critics argue that Kakoliris critiques Derrida’s reliance on stable authorial intention while himself employing traditional hermeneutic frameworks, creating an inconsistency in his argumentation.
Potential Misreading of Undecidability
Kakoliris’s critique of undecidability as undermining deconstruction’s coherence might miss Derrida’s distinction between undecidability as a productive tension and indeterminacy as complete ambiguity.
Limited Engagement with Practical Examples
The essay is critiqued for its theoretical nature and lack of detailed application to diverse literary works, which could demonstrate how Derrida’s method operates in practical criticism.

Undervaluing the Role of Play in Meaning
Kakoliris’s analysis may not fully account for Derrida’s concept of “play,” which is not only a destabilizing force but also integral to the formation of meaning and interpretative creativity.
Ambiguity in Addressing Deconstruction’s Goals
Critics suggest that Kakoliris demands a definitive choice between determination and dissemination, ignoring Derrida’s deliberate resistance to such binary oppositions.
Dismissal of Deconstruction’s Relevance to Contemporary Theory
By emphasizing its internal contradictions, the critique risks undervaluing the continued influence and adaptability of Derrida’s approach in modern literary and cultural theory.

Representative Quotations from “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Deconstruction can only subvert the meaning of a text that has already been construed.”	Highlights the paradox that deconstruction relies on stable textual meanings to initiate its critique, underscoring the inherent tension in Derrida’s methodology.
“Differance is not indeterminacy. It renders determinacy both possible and necessary.”	Clarifies Derrida’s concept of differance as foundational to meaning-making, rejecting the idea of total indeterminacy in textual interpretation.
“The absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of signification infinitely.”	Explains Derrida’s critique of metaphysics, where meaning is always deferred and never fully present, creating a space for deconstructive reading.
“Undecidability is a determinate oscillation between possibilities… highly determined in strictly defined situations.”	Emphasizes that undecidability does not mean random ambiguity but a structured interplay of multiple possibilities within specific contexts.
“Doubling commentary finds a passage ‘lisible’ and understandable, reconstructing determinate meaning.”	Defines the first phase of double reading, where traditional methods are used to extract stable textual meanings.
“Deconstructive reading situates itself in the gap between what the author ‘commands’ and what she does not ‘command.’”	Explains how deconstruction identifies the tension between authorial intention and the unintended, uncontrollable meanings within a text.
“Dissemination is the state of perpetually unfulfilled meaning that exists in the absence of all signifieds.”	Describes the endless deferral of meaning in deconstruction, where meanings proliferate beyond control or resolution.
“Relative stability (and hence destabilizability) is a prerequisite for deconstruction.”	Argues that deconstruction depends on a paradoxical stability within texts, without which destabilization cannot occur.
“A stability is not an immutability.”	Supports the idea that meanings, while stable for interpretation, are not fixed permanently, allowing for deconstructive reinterpretation.
“In order to justify deconstruction, Derrida invokes the play of differance to destabilize the determinations it previously enabled.”	Critiques the circular logic in Derrida’s methodology, where differance simultaneously enables and undermines stable meanings.

“Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone: Summary and Critique

“Deconstruction as Social Critique: Derrida on Marx and the New World Order” by Moishe Postone first appeared in History and Theory in 1998.

Introduction: “Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone

“Deconstruction as Social Critique: Derrida on Marx and the New World Order” by Moishe Postone first appeared in History and Theory in 1998. The essay critically examines Jacques Derrida’s Specters of Marx, a seminal work that revisits Marx’s legacy in the context of global capitalism’s triumphalism following the Cold War’s end. Derrida introduces the concept of “spectrality,” which challenges the dominance of presentism and teleological narratives of history, emphasizing temporalities that transcend the immediate present. Postone critiques Derrida’s abstraction, arguing for a more historically grounded and socially specific analysis of capitalism’s dynamics. This work is crucial in literary theory for its intersection of deconstruction with Marxist critique, demonstrating how Derrida reinterprets Marx to address modern socio-political conditions. Postone’s critique advances the discourse by emphasizing the need for a critical theory that connects Derrida’s insights on temporality with tangible socio-historical analysis, contributing to debates on capitalism, justice, and the possibilities of emancipation in contemporary thought.

Summary of “Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone

Derrida’s Theoretical Intervention: Addressing the Post-Cold War Era

Jacques Derrida’s Specters of Marx offers a critique of neoliberal triumphalism following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Marxism’s perceived death (Postone, 1998, p. 370).

Derrida introduces the concept of spectrality to question the present order and calls for a new International to resist economic and political neo-liberalism (p. 371).
His strategy critiques Marxism by separating a “spirit of Marx” from its dogmatic and ontological elements, emphasizing the emancipatory potential of Marx’s ideas (p. 372).

Spectrality: Temporal Disjunctures and the Critique of Presentism

Derrida’s concept of spectrality highlights non-identical temporalities, contrasting the “chain of presents” with the lingering impact of the past and aspirations for a different future (p. 373).
Spectrality serves as a political framework to critique homogeneous time and presentism while advocating justice that transcends calculative systems rooted in vengeance (pp. 373-374).

Justice and Responsibility: Beyond Traditional Politics

Derrida connects spectrality to a messianic notion of justice, opposing traditional notions of law and vengeance by envisioning justice as tied to the otherness of the future (pp. 375-376).
This critique underpins his advocacy for a politics that breaks with the present, emphasizing memory and responsibility to the past and future victims of systemic injustices (p. 374).

Marx’s Legacy and Neo-Liberal Critiques

Derrida frames his critique in opposition to neo-liberal ideologies like Fukuyama’s End of History, which celebrates capitalism as history’s culmination (pp. 376-377).
He emphasizes the failures of neoliberalism through the “ten plagues” of the new world order, including unemployment, economic inequality, and international crises, asserting that global capitalism exacerbates oppression (pp. 378-379).

Spectrality and Marxism: Tensions and Limitations

Derrida’s appropriation of Marx centers on the tension between Marxism’s emancipatory potential and its ontological rigidity (p. 380).
He critiques traditional Marxist teleology and its presentism, arguing for a critique that integrates the spectral’s disruption of historical continuity (pp. 380-381).

Postone’s Critique of Derrida: Social and Historical Determinacy

Postone argues that Derrida’s spectrality lacks historical specificity and cannot adequately critique global capitalism’s structural dynamics (p. 383).
A meaningful critique, according to Postone, requires grounding in historically determinate categories like Marx’s analysis of capitalism as a system of social mediation, not just abstract concepts like spectrality (pp. 384-385).

The Need for a Reflexive Social Theory

Postone critiques Derrida for failing to link his critique of neoliberalism to a self-reflexive theoretical framework that explains capitalism’s historical dynamics (p. 386).
He suggests that Derrida’s approach risks affirming the same presentism it seeks to critique, as it does not provide the conceptual tools for imagining a determinate, emancipatory future (p. 387).

Conclusion: Toward a More Grounded Critical Theory

While Postone acknowledges Derrida’s important critique of neoliberal triumphalism and traditional Marxism, he calls for a more historically and socially specific approach.
This critique should articulate a determinate possibility for transformation within the current system, integrating Derrida’s insights with Marx’s historical materialism to address contemporary global challenges effectively (p. 387).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context/Usage in the Text
Spectrality	Refers to temporalities that transcend the present, including the persistence of the past and anticipation of the future.	Central to Derrida’s critique of presentism and as a means to reframe Marx’s legacy beyond traditional Marxism (Postone, 1998, pp. 372-374).
Presentism	The dominance of the immediate present as an immutable order, disregarding historical continuity and future potentialities.	Critiqued by Derrida as a barrier to imagining alternative futures and justice beyond the present (pp. 373-374).
Justice Beyond Right	A conception of justice removed from the logic of equivalence and vengeance inherent in law and politics.	Derrida contrasts this notion of justice with Heidegger’s metaphysics of presence (pp. 375-376).
Messianic	A concept of hope and redemption without concrete content or teleological determinism.	Derrida uses this to propose a politics of responsibility that embraces the spectral future (pp. 375-377).
New International	A network of non-governmental, non-party organizations and movements addressing global injustices.	Proposed by Derrida as a practical realization of his spectral politics, breaking from traditional Marxist organizational forms (p. 378).
Neo-Liberalism	An economic and political ideology characterized by market supremacy, individualism, and the dismissal of Marxist critiques.	Critiqued by Derrida as triumphalist and dismissive of the socio-economic inequalities it perpetuates (pp. 376-377).
Commodity Fetishism	The attribution of social relations to commodities, obscuring the underlying labor dynamics.	Derrida critiques Marx’s analysis of fetishism for privileging “presence” over spectral dimensions (p. 384).
Homogeneous Time	A linear, modular conception of time where each present moment is identical and disconnected from alternative temporalities.	Critiqued by Derrida as a feature of capitalist modernity and teleological history (pp. 373-374).
Ontology vs. Hauntology	Ontology refers to the study of being, while hauntology emphasizes the persistence of the spectral and non-present.	Derrida contrasts hauntology with traditional metaphysics of presence, incorporating spectrality (pp. 372-373).
Teleological Eschatology	A historical narrative where events are directed toward an inevitable end or resolution.	Derrida critiques both Marxist and neo-liberal ideologies for relying on such deterministic frameworks (p. 380).
Abstract Domination	A historically specific form of compulsion mediated by abstract social relations, particularly labor.	Used by Postone to critique Derrida’s lack of engagement with the structural dynamics of capitalism (p. 385).
Heteronomy	The subjection to external forces or laws rather than self-determination.	Postone links this to the domination inherent in capitalism, which Derrida overlooks (p. 386).
Reflexivity	A critique that grounds its theoretical categories in the historical and social conditions it seeks to analyze.	Postone argues that Derrida’s spectrality lacks reflexive grounding in empirical analysis (pp. 386-387).
Totality	A concept that critiques systemic, overarching structures, often seen as homogenizing or deterministic.	Postone reclaims totality as a critical object, diverging from Derrida’s rejection of it (pp. 386-387).

Contribution of “Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Expanding Deconstruction into Socio-Political Critique

Postone demonstrates how Derrida extends deconstruction beyond its textual roots to critique global capitalism and neoliberalism.
By incorporating spectrality, Derrida critiques presentism, challenging fixed narratives of history and emphasizing non-linear, discontinuous temporalities (Postone, 1998, pp. 372-374).
This approach aligns deconstruction with political theory, making it relevant for critiques of modern socio-political structures.

2. Challenging Traditional Marxism through Deconstruction

Postone highlights Derrida’s critique of ontological and dogmatic Marxism, separating the “spirit of Marx” from its institutionalized forms (p. 372).
Derrida’s work redefines Marxism, linking it to the hauntology of justice and emphasizing the emancipatory potential of Marx’s ideas over deterministic or teleological interpretations (pp. 375-377).

3. Contribution to Poststructuralism

Derrida’s focus on justice beyond right and his critique of teleological eschatology contribute to poststructuralist debates on law, ethics, and governance (p. 376).
His messianic hope introduces a non-content-based promise of transformation, reinforcing poststructuralist skepticism of grand narratives (p. 375).

4. Integrating Philosophy with Critical Social Theory

Derrida bridges the gap between critical social theory and philosophy, as his critique of global capitalism addresses material inequalities alongside metaphysical concerns (pp. 376-378).
This synthesis expands the relevance of literary theory to empirical and historical contexts, emphasizing the political implications of theoretical discourse.

5. Critique of Metaphysics and Homogeneous Temporality

Derrida’s deconstruction of metaphysics of presence—such as substance, essence, and teleology—intersects with literary theory by challenging the fixity of narrative structures and time (pp. 373-374).
Postone expands this critique by highlighting the failure of traditional Marxist and neoliberal ideologies to break from such metaphysical constructs (p. 380).

6. Influence on Hauntology in Contemporary Theories

Derrida’s hauntology redefines notions of being and presence, offering a framework for analyzing absence, loss, and deferred futures (p. 372).
This concept influences literary theories dealing with memory, temporality, and postcolonial studies, which grapple with the spectral persistence of historical injustices.

7. Renewing Marxist Literary Criticism

Postone situates Derrida’s reinterpretation of Marx as a critique of commodity fetishism, showing its relevance to understanding the cultural production and consumption under capitalism (pp. 384-385).
Derrida’s approach reinvigorates Marxist criticism by addressing how social relations are mediated and mystified in cultural texts.

8. Critique of Totality in Structuralism

By rejecting structuralist totality, Derrida aligns with poststructuralism, proposing a fragmented, spectral alternative that allows for the coexistence of multiple temporalities (pp. 386-387).
This critique is vital for literary theories focusing on decentered subjectivities and non-linear narratives.

9. Influence on Postmodern and Postcolonial Theories

Derrida’s emphasis on the New International—a decentralized, non-hierarchical movement—provides a model for postmodern theories that resist traditional power structures (pp. 377-378).
His critique of presentism and emphasis on spectral justice also resonate with postcolonial theories, which address the lingering effects of colonial histories (p. 375).

Examples of Critiques Through “Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone

Literary Work	Key Themes in the Work	Critique Using Postone/Derrida’s Framework
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet	Themes of justice, revenge, and the spectral presence of the past.	– The ghost of King Hamlet can be analyzed through spectrality, representing unresolved past traumas and the non-contemporaneity of the present (Postone, 1998, p. 374). – Hamlet’s existential struggle with time and justice aligns with Derrida’s critique of presentism and justice beyond right (p. 375).
Charles Dickens’ Hard Times	Critique of industrialization and dehumanizing effects of capitalism.	– The commodification of labor and reduction of individuals to economic functions parallels Derrida’s critique of commodity fetishism (p. 384). – The work can be viewed as critiquing the homogeneous time of industrial capitalism, which erases individuality and historical complexity (p. 373).
Franz Kafka’s The Trial	Bureaucratic oppression, alienation, and the elusive nature of justice.	– The opaque and unreachable justice depicted in The Trial resonates with Derrida’s notion of justice beyond right and the limits of institutionalized systems (p. 375). – The protagonist’s entrapment within an abstract system reflects abstract domination inherent in capitalist modernity (p. 386).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	Memory, trauma, and the spectral presence of slavery’s legacy.	– The figure of Beloved as a ghost embodies spectrality, representing the lingering past that shapes present and future realities (p. 374). – Morrison’s focus on the intergenerational trauma of slavery aligns with Derrida’s critique of presentism and the need to confront historical injustices (p. 375).

Criticism Against “Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone

1. Lack of Empirical Grounding

Postone critiques Derrida’s approach for being too abstract and socially indeterminate, failing to link spectrality to concrete historical and social dynamics (Postone, 1998, pp. 384-385).
Derrida’s descriptive critique of neoliberalism (e.g., the “ten plagues”) lacks a framework to explain the interrelatedness of these phenomena (p. 379).

2. Insufficient Reflexivity

The work lacks a self-reflexive critique that grounds its theoretical categories in the material conditions it seeks to address, undermining its relevance to real-world analyses (p. 386).
Derrida avoids addressing how his critique relates to Marx’s historically specific categories, such as labor and capital, leading to theoretical vagueness (pp. 386-387).

3. Overreliance on Spectrality

The concept of spectrality, while innovative, is criticized for being too broad and undifferentiated, making it insufficient to analyze specific forms of domination or historical patterns (pp. 385-386).
Spectrality fails to distinguish between the reconstitution of present time and its undermining, which are critical for understanding systemic changes (p. 386).

4. Misreading of Marx

Postone argues that Derrida misinterprets Marx’s critique, conflating it with traditional Marxist teleology and ontology (p. 384).
Derrida’s reading of Marx through phenomenological lenses leads to a reductionist critique, ignoring Marx’s emphasis on historically specific forms of social relations (p. 385).

5. Overemphasis on Philosophy

Postone contends that Derrida’s critique remains philosophically bound, limiting its capacity to address socio-economic realities and material conditions effectively (p. 387).
The focus on deconstructing metaphysical categories neglects the structural and systemic dynamics of global capitalism (pp. 384-385).

6. Weak Engagement with Capitalism’s Dynamics

Derrida’s critique does not sufficiently analyze the historical dynamic of capitalism, such as its mechanisms of exploitation and accumulation (p. 379).
By relying on abstract notions like hauntology, Derrida risks reinforcing the same presentism and totality he seeks to dismantle (p. 386).

7. Theoretical Inconsistencies

Derrida’s rejection of historical teleology conflicts with his use of Marx’s emancipatory spirit, creating a tension between messianic hope and historical materialism (pp. 375-377).
Postone highlights that Derrida juxtaposes elements of Marxist analysis with deconstruction without adequately reconciling their differences (p. 384).

8. Limited Practical Applicability

Derrida’s proposal of a New International, while conceptually intriguing, lacks specificity regarding how such movements would operate or achieve systemic change (p. 378).
The absence of practical strategies for confronting global capitalism weakens the political utility of Derrida’s critique (p. 387).

Representative Quotations from “Deconstruction As Social Critique: Derrida On Marx And The New World Order” By Moishe Postone with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Spectrality entails temporal disjuncture; it expresses that which does not exist solely in the ‘chain of presents’.” (Postone, p. 379)	This highlights Derrida’s notion of spectrality as a challenge to presentism and linear conceptions of history, emphasizing the role of the past and future in shaping the present.
“Never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and … economic oppression affected as many human beings.” (p. 85)	A critique of neoliberalism’s global impact, this emphasizes the failures of liberal democracy and capitalism to address escalating inequality and systemic crises.
“Derrida’s concept of spectrality provides a critique of the present in the name of another future and a justice beyond presence.” (p. 384)	Postone identifies how Derrida’s spectrality challenges conventional notions of justice, aiming for a form of justice not rooted in presentist vengeance or legal equivalence.
“Derrida asserts that there will be no future without the memory and inheritance of Marx, or at least one of his several spirits.” (p. 13)	Derrida insists on the necessity of Marx’s critical legacy for imagining alternative futures, despite critiquing Marxism’s ontological and dogmatic tendencies.
“Derrida criticizes Marx’s critique of ghosts, specters, and mystification as being from the standpoint of living presence.” (p. 384)	Postone critiques Derrida’s interpretation of Marx, arguing it misrepresents Marx’s materialist critique by reducing it to a simplistic opposition of spirit and presence.
“The notion of a fundamentally different future must be rooted in the present, in its tensions, possibilities, and struggles.” (p. 380)	Postone argues that Derrida’s critique lacks the material grounding necessary for a transformative vision of the future.
“The ‘New International’ represents a movement beyond presence, without fixed forms such as party, state, or class membership.” (p. 378)	Derrida’s vision of a global resistance aligns with decentralized, fluid, and inclusive movements, rejecting hierarchical and rigid structures of traditional Marxism.
“The abstract messianic, unlike teleological or eschatological programs, remains without content or identifiable messiah.” (p. 28)	Derrida’s notion of a “messianic” critique avoids fixed end-states, contrasting it with deterministic visions of history while retaining emancipatory hope.
“The failure of Marxism stems from its grounding in forms of presence, such as organizations, parties, and states.” (p. 29)	Derrida critiques traditional Marxism for its inability to transcend structures tied to presentist and static modes of organizing, limiting its transformative potential.
“Marx’s categories must be understood as historically specific, not transhistorical or material.” (p. 381)	Postone stresses the importance of viewing Marx’s analysis as historically contingent, countering Derrida’s more abstracted interpretations.

“Chicago” by Carl Sandburg: A Critical Analysis

“Chicago” by Carl Sandburg, first appeared in 1914 in his poetry collection Chicago Poems, captures the raw, vibrant energy of Chicago as a burgeoning industrial city.

Introduction: “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

“Chicago” by Carl Sandburg, first appeared in 1914 in his poetry collection Chicago Poems, captures the raw, vibrant energy of Chicago as a burgeoning industrial city, portraying its harsh realities and rugged beauty through vivid imagery and free verse. Sandburg personifies the city as a bold and defiant figure, unapologetic in its flaws yet proud of its industrious spirit. Its candid depiction of urban life and its celebration of the working class have made it a staple in school curricula, offering students a glimpse into early 20th-century American life and literature. The poem’s accessibility and its resonant themes of resilience, labor, and identity contribute to its enduring popularity in education.

Text: “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

Hog Butcher for the World,

Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat,

Player with Railroads and the Nation’s Freight Handler;

Stormy, husky, brawling,

City of the Big Shoulders:

They tell me you are wicked and I believe them, for I have seen your painted women under the gas lamps luring the farm boys.

And they tell me you are crooked and I answer: Yes, it is true I have seen the gunman kill and go free to kill again.

And they tell me you are brutal and my reply is: On the faces of women and children I have seen the marks of wanton hunger.

And having answered so I turn once more to those who sneer at this my city, and I give them back the sneer and say to them:

Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning.

Flinging magnetic curses amid the toil of piling job on job, here is a tall bold slugger set vivid against the little soft cities;

Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action, cunning as a savage pitted against the wilderness,

Bareheaded,

Shoveling,

Wrecking,

Planning,

Building, breaking, rebuilding,

Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth, laughing with white teeth,

Under the terrible burden of destiny laughing as a young man laughs,

Laughing even as an ignorant fighter laughs who has never lost a battle,

Bragging and laughing that under his wrist is the pulse, and under his ribs the heart of the people,

Laughing!

Laughing the stormy, husky, brawling laughter of Youth, half-naked, sweating, proud to be Hog Butcher, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and Freight Handler to the Nation.

Annotations: “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

Line	Annotation
Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and the Nation’s Freight Handler;	Highlights Chicago’s industrial and economic significance, emphasizing its role in meatpacking, manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, and commerce. The repetition reinforces the city’s identity as a powerhouse of labor and industry.
Stormy, husky, brawling, City of the Big Shoulders:	Describes Chicago’s rugged and robust character, using metaphors to evoke its strength, resilience, and unapologetically rough demeanor. “City of the Big Shoulders” personifies the city as a figure capable of bearing heavy burdens.
They tell me you are wicked and I believe them, for I have seen your painted women under the gas lamps luring the farm boys.	Acknowledges Chicago’s moral flaws and corruption, referring to its nightlife and prostitution as evidence of its “wickedness.” The line juxtaposes rural innocence (“farm boys”) with urban temptation.
And they tell me you are crooked and I answer: Yes, it is true I have seen the gunman kill and go free to kill again.	Confronts the city’s crime and corruption, alluding to lawlessness and violence. Sandburg accepts these realities as part of the city’s identity without sugar-coating them.
And they tell me you are brutal and my reply is: On the faces of women and children I have seen the marks of wanton hunger.	Addresses the city’s harsh socioeconomic conditions, particularly the poverty and suffering endured by women and children. Sandburg portrays this “brutality” as a visible and undeniable truth.
And having answered so I turn once more to those who sneer at this my city, and I give them back the sneer and say to them:	Displays defiance and pride, as Sandburg defends Chicago against its critics. His tone becomes confrontational, challenging outsiders to compare their cities with Chicago’s indomitable spirit.
Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning.	Elevates Chicago above other cities by celebrating its vitality and resilience. Sandburg conveys the city’s unapologetic pride despite its flaws, using personification to present it as a bold, living entity.
Flinging magnetic curses amid the toil of piling job on job, here is a tall bold slugger set vivid against the little soft cities;	Contrasts Chicago’s vigor with the perceived gentleness of other cities. “Tall bold slugger” metaphorically portrays Chicago as a formidable fighter, emphasizing its industrious nature.
Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action, cunning as a savage pitted against the wilderness,	Uses similes to evoke Chicago’s tenacity and survival instinct, likening the city to a dog eager for action and a savage struggling against adversity. The imagery conveys raw energy and primal force.
Bareheaded, Shoveling, Wrecking, Planning, Building, breaking, rebuilding,	Highlights the relentless cycle of labor and progress. The enumeration emphasizes Chicago’s industrious spirit and its perpetual drive to innovate and rebuild despite challenges.
Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth, laughing with white teeth,	Depicts the physical toll of industrial work (“smoke, dust”) while capturing the city’s enduring vitality and optimism through the image of “laughing with white teeth.”
Under the terrible burden of destiny laughing as a young man laughs,	Reflects Chicago’s resilience and youthful exuberance despite its challenges. “Terrible burden of destiny” suggests the city’s immense responsibilities and potential.
Laughing even as an ignorant fighter laughs who has never lost a battle,	Reinforces Chicago’s confidence and bravado. The “ignorant fighter” metaphor conveys a sense of defiance and unyielding spirit.
Bragging and laughing that under his wrist is the pulse, and under his ribs the heart of the people,	Connects the city to its workers, portraying Chicago as embodying the lifeblood (“pulse”) and heart of its people. This metaphor emphasizes unity and pride in shared labor and identity.
Laughing the stormy, husky, brawling laughter of Youth, half-naked, sweating, proud to be Hog Butcher, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and Freight Handler to the Nation.	Concludes with a triumphant affirmation of Chicago’s identity. The imagery of youthful, raw energy encapsulates the city’s pride in its industrial and cultural significance.

Literary And Poetic Devices: “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

Literary/Poetic Device	Example	Explanation
Alliteration	“Bareheaded, Shoveling, Wrecking, Planning, Building, breaking, rebuilding”	Repetition of initial consonant sounds “b” creates rhythm and emphasizes the raw, energetic qualities of the city.
Anaphora	“And they tell me… And they tell me…”	Repetition of phrases at the beginning of consecutive clauses reinforces accusations about the city’s flaws.
Apostrophe	“Come and show me another city…”	Directly addresses the critics of Chicago, creating a conversational and confrontational tone.
Assonance	“Bareheaded, shoveling, wrecking, planning”	Repetition of vowel sounds in close proximity enhances the musicality and flow of the verse.
Cataloging	“Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads”	The listing of Chicago’s roles emphasizes its multifaceted industrial identity.
Consonance	“Breaking, rebuilding”	Repetition of consonant sounds creates a rhythmic quality, reflecting the city’s constant cycle of destruction and renewal.
Defamiliarization	“City of the Big Shoulders”	A unique metaphor that makes readers rethink and visualize the city’s capacity for labor and resilience.
Enjambment	“Laughing even as an ignorant fighter laughs / who has never lost a battle”	Continuation of a sentence without pause across lines creates a natural, conversational rhythm.
Epiphora	“Laughing, laughing, laughing…”	Repetition at the end of clauses emphasizes Chicago’s unyielding vitality and defiance.
Free Verse	The entire poem	Lack of a strict rhyme or meter reflects the untamed and free-spirited essence of the city.
Imagery	“Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth, laughing with white teeth”	Descriptive language appeals to the senses, vividly portraying the city’s laboring, dirty, yet spirited identity.
Juxtaposition	“Wicked… Crooked… Proud… Coarse and Strong”	Contrasts negative and positive qualities to present a multifaceted view of the city.
Metaphor	“Tall bold slugger”	Compares the city to a powerful fighter, emphasizing its strength and resilience.
Personification	“City of the Big Shoulders”	Attributes human qualities to Chicago, making the city seem alive and robust.
Polyptoton	“Building, breaking, rebuilding”	Repetition of words derived from the same root highlights the cyclical nature of labor and progress.
Repetition	“Laughing, laughing, laughing…”	Reiterates key ideas and emotions, emphasizing the city’s indomitable spirit.
Simile	“Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action”	Direct comparison using “as” emphasizes the city’s aggressive and energetic nature.
Symbolism	“Painted women under the gas lamps”	Represents urban corruption and vice, symbolizing the darker aspects of city life.
Tone	“And having answered so I turn once more to those who sneer at this my city”	The defiant and proud tone underscores the speaker’s deep connection to Chicago and willingness to defend it.
Vivid Verbs	“Shoveling, wrecking, planning, building”	Dynamic action verbs convey the continuous activity and industriousness of the city.

Themes: “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

1. Urban Pride and Resilience

One of the central themes in Chicago is the pride and resilience of the city and its people. Sandburg openly acknowledges the city’s flaws, including corruption, violence, and poverty, as seen in lines like “They tell me you are crooked… And they tell me you are brutal.” However, instead of condemning these imperfections, the speaker celebrates the vitality and unrelenting spirit of Chicago. The city is personified as a bold, laughing figure, “laughing with white teeth” despite being covered in “smoke” and enduring the “terrible burden of destiny.” Sandburg emphasizes that Chicago thrives amidst adversity, presenting its industrious nature as something to admire. The defiant tone, particularly in “Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive,” illustrates the speaker’s belief that no city matches Chicago’s gritty vitality and undaunted spirit.

2. The Working-Class Struggle

The poem pays homage to the working class, portraying Chicago as a city built and sustained by labor. The opening lines, “Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads,” immediately frame Chicago as a hub of industry, where the toil of workers fuels the nation’s economy. The enumeration of roles reflects the diversity of labor that defines the city’s identity. Sandburg vividly depicts workers engaged in constant activity: “Bareheaded, shoveling, wrecking, planning, building, breaking, rebuilding.” This relentless cycle of creation and renewal captures both the physical toll of industrial labor and its enduring impact. The poem elevates the laborers as the heartbeat of the city, conveying respect for their efforts and resilience.

3. The Duality of Urban Life

Sandburg presents a duality in urban life, where beauty and brutality coexist. He does not shy away from the darker aspects of Chicago, describing its “painted women under the gas lamps luring the farm boys” and “the gunman kill and go free to kill again.” These images of vice and violence highlight the moral complexities of city life. Yet, Sandburg juxtaposes these realities with the city’s vibrant energy and industriousness, symbolized by “tall bold slugger” and “fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action.” By acknowledging both the hardships and triumphs of urban life, Sandburg creates a nuanced portrayal of Chicago as a city that is raw, flawed, but undeniably alive.

4. Human Connection to the City

The poem emphasizes the deep connection between the city and its inhabitants. Sandburg portrays Chicago as not just a place but a living entity, with “the pulse” under its wrist and “the heart of the people” under its ribs. This metaphorical representation suggests that the city’s vitality stems from the collective spirit of its residents. The speaker’s tone is deeply personal, referring to Chicago as “this my city.” Despite its flaws, the speaker defends Chicago against its detractors, illustrating a profound sense of belonging and identity. The line “Under the terrible burden of destiny laughing as a young man laughs” further underscores the human connection, as the city is likened to a youthful, enduring figure that embodies the resilience and pride of its people.

Literary Theories and “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

Literary Theory	Explanation	References from the Poem
Marxist Theory	Examines class struggle and the dynamics of labor and power. Sandburg’s poem emphasizes the working class and the economic forces that define Chicago, portraying the city as a hub of labor and industry.	“Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat” highlights the city’s identity as a center of production. The descriptions of workers “shoveling, wrecking, planning” reflect the central role of labor in shaping the city and its identity.
Ecocriticism	Focuses on the interaction between humans and their environment. While the poem centers on urban life, it acknowledges the environmental costs of industrialization, including smoke and dust that envelop the city.	“Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth” reflects the environmental degradation caused by Chicago’s industrial activities. The imagery underscores the tensions between progress and its ecological impact.
Feminist Theory	Explores gender dynamics and the portrayal of women. Sandburg’s brief mention of “painted women under the gas lamps” reflects societal perceptions of women’s roles in urban life, particularly in the context of vice and exploitation.	“Painted women under the gas lamps luring the farm boys” points to the marginalization of women in a male-dominated industrial society, portraying them as symbols of temptation and vice, which can be critiqued from a feminist perspective for perpetuating stereotypes.
Postmodernism	Highlights fragmentation and the multiplicity of perspectives. The poem juxtaposes the city’s flaws and strengths, presenting a multifaceted, non-linear narrative that resists singular interpretation.	“They tell me you are wicked… and I believe them” followed by “Come and show me another city” shows the fragmented and contradictory narrative, embracing both criticism and celebration of the city. The use of free verse aligns with postmodernism’s rejection of traditional poetic forms.

Critical Questions about “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

1. How does Sandburg portray the duality of Chicago’s character?

Sandburg vividly portrays Chicago as a city of contrasts, simultaneously celebrating its vitality and confronting its flaws. He does not shy away from its moral and social issues, acknowledging its “painted women under the gas lamps” and “gunman kill and go free to kill again.” These images highlight the city’s corruption, crime, and vice. However, Sandburg also emphasizes Chicago’s energy, resilience, and pride, describing it as “fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action” and “laughing with white teeth.” The juxtaposition between the city’s flaws and its strengths creates a multidimensional portrayal. The defiant tone in “Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive” captures Chicago’s unique spirit, suggesting that its vitality and resilience outweigh its imperfections. This duality reflects the complexities of urban life and the speaker’s unyielding love for the city.

2. In what ways does Sandburg’s poem reflect themes of industrialization and labor?

Chicago is a celebration of industrialization and the labor that drives the city’s growth and identity. Sandburg opens the poem with a litany of roles that define Chicago’s industrial might: “Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads.” These descriptions highlight the city’s contribution to the nation’s economy, portraying it as a hub of production and commerce. The workers are central to this narrative, depicted as “bareheaded, shoveling, wrecking, planning, building, breaking, rebuilding.” These action-packed verbs emphasize the relentless cycle of labor, innovation, and renewal that characterizes industrial cities. Despite the toll of industrial work, the speaker’s tone conveys admiration for the workers’ resilience, suggesting that their efforts are the lifeblood of Chicago. The poem’s emphasis on labor reflects the broader social and economic dynamics of the early 20th century.

3. How does Sandburg use personification to bring the city of Chicago to life?

Sandburg’s use of personification transforms Chicago into a living, breathing entity with human qualities, allowing readers to connect emotionally with the city. The city is described as “stormy, husky, brawling, City of the Big Shoulders,” evoking an image of a rugged, muscular figure capable of bearing immense burdens. Sandburg further personifies Chicago as “a tall bold slugger set vivid against the little soft cities,” likening it to a strong and fearless fighter. The city is also imbued with emotional qualities, such as pride and defiance, as seen in “laughing the stormy, husky, brawling laughter of Youth.” These descriptions portray Chicago as an unapologetic, youthful, and dynamic character. By giving the city human traits, Sandburg creates a sense of intimacy and pride, inviting readers to see Chicago as more than a location—it becomes a symbol of resilience and vitality.

4. What role does defiance play in the poem’s tone and message?

Defiance is a central element of the poem’s tone and message, reflecting the speaker’s pride in Chicago despite its flaws. The speaker directly addresses the city’s critics, acknowledging their accusations of wickedness, crime, and brutality: “They tell me you are wicked… they tell me you are crooked… they tell me you are brutal.” Instead of denying these flaws, the speaker embraces them as part of the city’s identity, responding with “Yes, it is true.” This honest acknowledgment is followed by a bold challenge: “Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive.” The speaker’s defiance is rooted in an unshakeable belief in Chicago’s vitality and uniqueness. The repetition of “laughing” throughout the poem reinforces this tone, as the city’s metaphorical laughter embodies its ability to thrive despite adversity. Sandburg’s defiance conveys a deep love for Chicago, presenting it as a city that transcends its shortcomings through its spirit and resilience.

Literary Works Similar to “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

“I Hear America Singing” by Walt Whitman
Similarity: Celebrates the working class and the diversity of labor, much like Sandburg’s ode to Chicago’s industrious spirit.
“The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus
Similarity: Both poems portray resilience and pride, with Lazarus’s focus on the welcoming spirit of America and Sandburg’s on Chicago’s raw vitality.

“Harlem” by Langston Hughes
Similarity: Reflects on the struggles and aspirations of urban life, akin to Sandburg’s honest acknowledgment of Chicago’s flaws and strengths.
“To Brooklyn Bridge” by Hart Crane
Similarity: Focuses on urban imagery and the symbolic power of a city landmark, paralleling Sandburg’s personification of Chicago as a vibrant, living entity.
“London” by William Blake
Similarity: Explores the darker aspects of city life, including poverty and corruption, while still engaging with the urban environment as a central theme.

Representative Quotations of “Chicago” by Carl Sandburg

Quotation	Context	Theoretical Perspective
“Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat”	Introduces Chicago as an industrial powerhouse and emphasizes its economic importance through vivid occupational imagery.	Marxist Theory: Highlights the working class’s central role in sustaining the city’s identity and economic contributions.
“Stormy, husky, brawling, City of the Big Shoulders”	Describes Chicago’s rugged and resilient character, embodying its capacity to bear burdens and thrive.	Structuralism: The metaphor personifies Chicago as a strong, living entity, symbolizing its industrial and cultural vitality.
“They tell me you are wicked… crooked… brutal”	Acknowledges criticisms of Chicago, such as its moral corruption, crime, and brutality, while presenting these flaws as integral to its identity.	Postmodernism: Embraces the contradictions and fragmented narratives of urban life, rejecting a singular moral judgment.
“Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive”	Defiantly challenges critics, celebrating Chicago’s unmatched vitality and resilience despite its flaws.	New Historicism: Reflects the historical context of early 20th-century urban pride and industrial progress amid social challenges.
“Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action”	Uses simile to convey Chicago’s unrelenting energy and readiness to face challenges.	Ecocriticism: Suggests the city’s primal, animalistic force as part of its struggle with the natural and industrial world.
“Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth, laughing with white teeth”	Illustrates the laborers’ endurance and humor despite the harsh, polluted environment of industrial Chicago.	Marxist Theory: Depicts the worker’s struggle within oppressive conditions, emphasizing their vitality and human spirit.
“Tall bold slugger set vivid against the little soft cities”	Compares Chicago to a powerful fighter, asserting its dominance and strength in contrast to other cities.	Structuralism: Highlights Chicago’s uniqueness and contrasts its toughness with perceived gentleness of other urban spaces.
“Painted women under the gas lamps luring the farm boys”	References urban vice and corruption, particularly the exploitation and moral decay symbolized by prostitution.	Feminist Theory: Offers an opportunity to critique gender roles and the objectification of women in urban spaces.
“Laughing as a young man laughs, who has never lost a battle”	Emphasizes Chicago’s youthful confidence and defiance, undeterred by adversity or criticism.	Psychoanalytic Theory: Suggests the city’s collective identity as one of optimism and resilience, akin to youthful invincibility.
“Bragging and laughing that under his wrist is the pulse, and under his ribs the heart of the people”	Personifies Chicago as a living entity, tying its vitality directly to the spirit and labor of its inhabitants.	Humanism: Celebrates the unity of the city and its people, emphasizing the human connection at the heart of industrial and cultural progress.

“Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland: Summary and Critique

“Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland first appeared in 1992 in the journal SubStance (Vol. 21, No. 2, Issue 68, pp. 61–76), published by the University of Wisconsin Press.

Introduction: “Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland

“Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland first appeared in 1992 in the journal SubStance (Vol. 21, No. 2, Issue 68, pp. 61–76), published by the University of Wisconsin Press. This seminal article examines the transition from structuralism to poststructuralism, highlighting the intellectual and philosophical shifts that defined the evolution of literary theory and criticism in France and beyond. The authors explore how figures like Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault moved away from the rigid frameworks of structuralism toward a fragmented and decentralized understanding of texts and human experience. Central to their argument is the critique of totalizing systems of knowledge and the rise of a “new humanism,” which calls for reimagining human agency and individuality within a fractured postmodern landscape. The article’s significance lies in its nuanced assessment of poststructuralism’s impact on contemporary debates about subjectivity, power, and the role of art in society, offering a critical lens through which to engage with modern and postmodern cultural movements.

Summary of “Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland

Introduction: Transition from Structuralism to Poststructuralism

The article begins with an analogy to Pieter Bruegel’s “Tower of Babel,” reflecting the collaborative, yet fragmenting, nature of structuralism and its movement away from its foundational linguistic focus (Thomas & Loveland, 1992, p. 61).

The transition of key figures like Barthes, Deleuze, and Foucault from structuralist to poststructuralist paradigms highlights a broader intellectual evolution, focusing on fragmentary realities over holistic systems (p. 63).

Deleuze’s Critique of Structuralism

Gilles Deleuze’s works, including Proust et les Signes (1964, 1970), illustrate the shift from structuralism’s systematic approach to the fragmented, anti-totalizing perspective of poststructuralism.

Deleuze challenges the dominance of “logos” (unifying reason), favoring a “rhizomatic” model where meaning arises from discrete, interconnected fragments rather than structured systems (p. 64).

The Influence of Modernity and Science

Lyotard’s La Condition Postmoderne (1979) contextualizes structuralism within the scientific positivism of modernity, emphasizing objectivity and systematic rigor (p. 65).

Figures like Roland Barthes initially embraced structuralism’s scientific rigor but later critiqued its totalizing tendencies, transitioning to semiological approaches more attuned to cultural and symbolic nuances (p. 66).

Poststructuralism as a Reactionary Movement

Poststructuralism critiques structuralism’s totalitarian implications by rejecting its fixed systems, advocating for indeterminacy, and emphasizing micro-narratives over grand narratives (p. 67).

This reaction led to a reevaluation of prior principles, marking structuralism as outdated and favoring individual, decentralized perspectives (p. 68).

Debates Between Modernists and Postmodernists

Poststructuralism’s emergence paralleled the rise of postmodernism, characterized by its critique of modernist ideals like universal truth and scientific rationality (p. 69).

Figures like Habermas criticized postmodern thinkers for undermining Enlightenment principles, while poststructuralists like Derrida and Lyotard rejected the pursuit of universal consensus (p. 72).

“The Cloud Theory” and Intellectual Fragmentation

The article uses “The Cloud Theory” to describe the nebulous nature of poststructuralist thought, which avoids rigid definitions and embraces ambiguity (p. 69).

Critics argue that this approach reflects intellectual stagnation, while proponents see it as a necessary evolution beyond rigid frameworks (p. 70).

The Emergence of New Humanism

In response to poststructuralism, a “New Humanism” emerged, seeking to reconcile modernist values with contemporary intellectual needs.

This movement emphasizes universal values, intersubjectivity, and a return to human-centered critique, contrasting the individualism and relativism of poststructuralism (p. 73).
Thinkers like Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut advocate for a reengagement with Enlightenment ideals to address societal challenges (p. 74).

Conclusion: Reaffirming Humanism in Literary and Cultural Critique

The article concludes by advocating for a balance between modernist universals and the insights of poststructuralism, enabling a richer understanding of literature and society (p. 75).
The “New Humanism” aims to move beyond the intellectual limitations of both structuralism and poststructuralism, restoring dignity and coherence to human thought (p. 76).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Context in the Article
Structuralism	A method of understanding human culture and literature through underlying structures like language and systems.	The article critiques structuralism for its rigid, totalizing frameworks and transition to poststructural critique. (p. 61)
Poststructuralism	A movement challenging structuralism’s fixed meanings, favoring fragmentation, fluidity, and decentralized systems.	Key poststructuralists like Deleuze and Barthes advocate for fragmented realities over universal structures. (p. 63)
Logos	Represents unifying reason or a systematic approach to knowledge.	Poststructuralists reject “Logos,” favoring chaos, fragments, and anti-totalizing approaches (e.g., Deleuze). (p. 64)
Rhizome	A metaphor for decentralized networks, emphasizing interconnections without hierarchical structures.	Deleuze and Guattari describe texts as “rhizomatic,” opposing structured or linear systems. (p. 64)
Sign	In Saussurean linguistics, the basic unit of meaning created through differences and relationships.	Deleuze critiques the structuralist reliance on signs, promoting a more fragmented semiotics. (p. 64)
New Humanism	A philosophical response to poststructuralism, emphasizing universal values, human dignity, and intersubjectivity.	The article discusses this as a counter to the relativism and individualism of poststructuralism. (p. 73)
Cloud Theory	A metaphor for the indeterminate, ambiguous nature of poststructuralist theory.	The term critiques poststructuralism’s lack of coherence and theoretical clarity. (p. 69)
Postmodernism	A cultural and intellectual movement rejecting modernist universals, favoring multiplicity and relativism.	Often linked with poststructuralism, critiqued for abandoning Enlightenment ideals like reason and progress. (p. 72)
Micronarratives	Small, localized stories or perspectives that replace grand, universal narratives.	Advocated by poststructuralists as an alternative to totalizing systems of knowledge. (p. 68)
Neostructuralism	A term used to describe the residual influence of structuralist principles within poststructuralist frameworks.	Critics use this term disparagingly to highlight poststructuralism’s inconsistency. (p. 69)
Enlightenment Values	Ideals such as reason, progress, and universal human rights stemming from Enlightenment philosophy.	Poststructuralism is critiqued for rejecting these values, while “New Humanism” seeks to revive them. (p. 74)
Decentralization	The rejection of hierarchical or unified systems in favor of fragmented and networked structures.	A key feature of poststructuralist critique of structuralist systems. (p. 63)
Fragmentation	The breakdown of holistic systems into disconnected, discrete parts.	Seen as central to poststructuralist aesthetics and critique of structuralist frameworks. (p. 64)
Subjectivity	Focus on individual perspectives and autonomy, often at the expense of collective or universal frameworks.	Poststructuralism promotes subjectivity, which “New Humanism” seeks to balance with universal principles. (p. 73)

Contribution of “Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Structuralism

Critique of Structuralist Rigidity: The article challenges structuralism’s focus on universal systems and “structural laws,” arguing that such frameworks fail to account for the complexity and fragmentation of modern texts (Thomas & Loveland, 1992, p. 61).
Highlighting the Limits of Totalizing Frameworks: The authors emphasize the inadequacy of structuralism’s reliance on fixed meanings, encouraging a move towards more flexible, interpretive approaches (p. 64).

2. Poststructuralism

Advocacy for Fragmentation and Decentralization: The article reinforces the poststructuralist emphasis on breaking away from unified, hierarchical systems to embrace fragmented, rhizomatic structures (p. 64).
Promotion of Anti-Logos Thinking: It supports poststructuralist critiques of the “Logos,” advocating for texts as collections of disconnected, diverse elements rather than cohesive wholes (p. 63).
Introduction of “Cloud Theory”: A metaphor for the nebulous and decentralized nature of poststructuralist thought, contributing to debates on indeterminacy in literary theory (p. 69).

3. Semiotics

Critique of Saussurean Semiotics: The article highlights the limitations of Saussure’s sign theory, particularly its dependence on relationships of difference, and explores poststructuralist alternatives emphasizing fluid, fragmented signs (p. 64).
Contribution to Semiological Analysis: It builds on Barthes’ transition from structuralist semiotics to a broader, culturally nuanced semiology, focusing on dynamic interpretations of signs (p. 66).

4. Postmodernism

Connection Between Postmodernism and Poststructuralism: The article draws parallels between the two movements, particularly their shared rejection of grand narratives and universal truths in favor of localized, contingent perspectives (p. 72).
Critique of Postmodernism’s Relativism: While acknowledging its influence, the authors critique postmodernism’s tendency toward intellectual ambiguity and its dismissal of Enlightenment values (p. 69).

5. New Historicism

Contextualizing Structuralism and Poststructuralism Historically: The article situates these movements within broader intellectual and cultural shifts, such as the influence of scientific positivism and the decline of Enlightenment ideals (p. 65).
Reinvention of Humanism: It advocates for the inclusion of historical and cultural specificity in redefining universal human values, enriching New Historicist approaches (p. 73).

6. Reader-Response Theory

Focus on Subjectivity and Individual Interpretation: The article contributes to debates on the role of the reader by emphasizing the importance of individual perspectives and autonomy in interpreting texts (p. 68).
Challenges to Objective Meaning: It aligns with reader-response theory’s rejection of fixed, authorial intent, promoting subjective and decentralized readings (p. 64).

7. Humanism and New Humanism

Reintroduction of Universal Values: The authors advocate for a “New Humanism” that restores dignity, universalism, and intersubjectivity to literary theory, countering the relativism of poststructuralism (p. 73).
Emphasis on Ethical and Political Dimensions: By promoting human-centered critique, the article repositions literary theory as a tool for ethical and societal transformation (p. 74).

8. Critical Theory

Engagement with Enlightenment Ideals: The article critiques poststructuralist and postmodernist departures from Enlightenment principles, contributing to ongoing critical theory debates on the role of reason and universality (p. 72).
Advocacy for Dialogue Between Movements: It encourages bridging gaps between modernist and postmodernist thought, enriching critical theory’s capacity for intellectual synthesis (p. 74).

9. Comparative Literary Studies

Interdisciplinary Approach: By referencing figures like Lyotard, Deleuze, and Habermas, the article contributes to comparative studies by bridging philosophical, literary, and cultural critiques (p. 71).
Cross-Cultural Perspectives: It highlights tensions between French poststructuralism and German critical theory, fostering a global dialogue in literary studies (p. 70).

Examples of Critiques Through “Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland

Literary Work	Poststructuralist Critique	New Humanism Critique
1. Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time	Fragmentation of Memory and Signs: Deleuze’s critique of structuralist poetics in Proust et les Signes emphasizes fragmented, non-linear memory as a challenge to totalizing narratives (Thomas & Loveland, 1992, p. 64).	Universal Truth in Memory: While embracing fragmentation, New Humanism would seek universal themes of truth and human experience in Proust’s exploration of time and identity (p. 73).
2. James Joyce’s Ulysses	Decentralization of Meaning: Poststructuralist readings would focus on Joyce’s use of fragmented narrative and intertextuality, rejecting unified interpretations (p. 69).	Humanist Themes in Complexity: New Humanism would argue for the ethical and universal significance of Joyce’s themes of identity, community, and the human condition (p. 73).
3. Roland Barthes’ Mythologies	Critique of Structural Myths: Poststructuralism would challenge the “myth” of coherent cultural systems, emphasizing the instability of the signs Barthes analyzes (p. 66).	Ethical Relevance of Myths: New Humanism would reinterpret Barthes’ work to highlight the humanist critique of consumer culture and its impact on societal values (p. 74).
4. T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land	Indeterminacy and Fragmentation: Poststructuralism would celebrate Eliot’s fragmented structure and intertextual elements as a rejection of unified meaning (p. 68).	Restoration of Universal Meaning: New Humanism would seek to recover universal themes of despair, renewal, and cultural critique in Eliot’s modernist poem (p. 73).

Criticism Against “Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland

1. Lack of Practical Application

Critics argue that the concepts of “Cloud Theory” and decentralization are too abstract, making it difficult to apply these ideas effectively to practical literary analysis.
The article’s emphasis on theoretical ambiguity might alienate readers seeking concrete examples or applications.

2. Overgeneralization of Structuralism and Poststructuralism

The article tends to oversimplify structuralism as rigid and totalizing while presenting poststructuralism as entirely fragmented, ignoring the nuances within both movements.
It doesn’t fully address the contributions of structuralist figures who embraced flexibility, such as later works of Barthes.

3. Idealization of “New Humanism”

Critics argue that the advocacy for “New Humanism” risks reverting to overly idealistic, universal frameworks that poststructuralism rightfully critiques.
The claim that “universal values” can bridge the gaps between movements may appear overly optimistic and dismissive of cultural and contextual specificity.

4. Limited Engagement with Diverse Perspectives

The article primarily focuses on French and European intellectual traditions, neglecting contributions from non-Western literary theories or perspectives that might challenge its claims.
Critics point out that it doesn’t adequately engage with feminist, postcolonial, or other intersectional critiques of poststructuralism and New Humanism.

5. Ambiguity in Critiquing Postmodernism

While critiquing postmodernism’s relativism, the article doesn’t fully differentiate how poststructuralism avoids the same pitfalls, leading to potential conflation of the two.
The rejection of postmodernism’s skepticism towards universal truths may appear reductive or dismissive of legitimate critiques of Enlightenment ideals.

6. Tension Between Theory and Praxis

The theoretical debate between structuralism, poststructuralism, and New Humanism remains largely academic, with limited discussion on practical implications for real-world societal or cultural issues.
Critics question whether the proposed “New Humanism” adequately addresses contemporary challenges like digital media, globalization, and systemic inequalities.

7. Overemphasis on European Contexts

The focus on European thinkers (Deleuze, Barthes, Lyotard, etc.) marginalizes non-European contributions, reinforcing a Eurocentric perspective on literary theory.
The lack of dialogue with American or Asian critical schools weakens the universality the article aspires to promote.

8. Potential Contradictions in Universalism

The article’s call for universal principles may conflict with its critique of structuralism’s universal frameworks, leading to perceived theoretical inconsistencies.
Critics argue that imposing “universal values” risks ignoring the diversity of human experiences and perspectives.

Representative Quotations from “Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The sign is what forces us to think… Thinking is always interpreting, which is to say explaining, developing, deciphering, translating a sign.” (p. 61)	This emphasizes the centrality of signs in structuralism and the cognitive act of interpretation, laying the groundwork for poststructuralist critiques of fixed meanings. Poststructuralism deconstructs this framework by suggesting that signs are inherently unstable and open to diverse interpretations.
“There is no Logos—there are only hieroglyphics.” (p. 63)	This reflects Deleuze’s rejection of universal, totalizing systems of thought, instead emphasizing fragmented and non-linear interpretations. It symbolizes poststructuralist skepticism towards traditional structures of coherence and logic, advocating for a multiplicity of meanings.
“Structuralism: the tenuous attachment of various independent unities to the turgid body of the One.” (p. 63)	This critique frames structuralism as an authoritarian system that prioritizes overarching unity, rejecting the fragmented and decentralized networks that poststructuralism celebrates. It challenges structuralism’s inclination to impose order, advocating for the complexity and heterogeneity of cultural texts.
“The poststructuralist condition replaces universal man by isolated individuals occupying central positions in various temporary microuniverses.” (p. 68)	The authors underscore poststructuralism’s rejection of universal humanism, emphasizing individuality and decentralization. Each individual constructs meaning in transient, personal contexts rather than adhering to universal truths.
“Cloud Theory” symbolizes a moment of intellectual deliquescence, where frameworks crumble into decentralization.” (p. 67)	The term “Cloud Theory” critiques poststructuralism’s lack of systematic coherence, depicting its decentralized nature as both a strength and a limitation. It illustrates how poststructuralism embraces ambiguity and fluidity at the cost of clarity and organization.
“We must break apart this network of appearances known as man… structural criticism is the precondition of science.” (p. 68)	Here, Foucault’s critique of humanism is highlighted. Structuralist approaches dismantle the anthropocentric assumptions of humanism, aiming instead for objective frameworks. Poststructuralists see this as overly rigid and limiting, calling for a more dynamic understanding of identity and meaning.
“Consensus has become an outmoded, questionable value.” (p. 72)	Lyotard critiques Enlightenment ideals of universal consensus, instead advocating for pluralistic and diverse perspectives that resist singular truths. This aligns with poststructuralist thought, which challenges the validity of universal frameworks and emphasizes localized and contested interpretations.
“Intellect is also the transcendence of Knowledge, of Concepts, of Laws.” (p. 74)	The authors link New Humanism to a transcendental intellectualism that reclaims the universal in a non-metaphysical way. This reorientation from poststructuralism represents an attempt to reconcile fragmented individualism with shared humanistic values.
“Postmodernism’s minimalism encourages thinking loosely, unambitiously, and feebly.” (p. 75)	A critique of postmodernism’s rejection of systematic coherence, this quote accuses it of fostering intellectual mediocrity. The authors argue that this detachment undermines intellectual rigor and critical depth, highlighting tensions between postmodern pluralism and the desire for structure.
“Man is king, Man is God… For Man has finished! Man has played every role!” (p. 76)	A return to Rimbaud’s poetry encapsulates the tension between poststructuralist fragmentation and a reassertion of humanism. The universality of the human condition is portrayed as a creative and transformative force, capable of transcending the limitations of structuralist and poststructuralist frameworks.

“History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse: Summary and Critique

“History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse first appeared in the January 1993 issue of Narrative (Vol. 1, No. 1), published by the Ohio State University Press.

Introduction: “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

“History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse first appeared in the January 1993 issue of Narrative (Vol. 1, No. 1), published by the Ohio State University Press. This seminal article explores the evolution of narrative within literary and historical theory, emphasizing its centrality to understanding modernity. Armstrong and Tennenhouse interrogate how poststructuralist critiques, drawing from figures like Derrida and Foucault, have overlooked narrative’s role as a mechanism of cultural production. They argue that narrative is not merely a vehicle for representation but an act of intellectual labor that constructs and naturalizes cultural and historical realities. The authors challenge the distinction between text and narrative, proposing that narrative constitutes a material process central to the rise of modern individual and cultural formations. This work is foundational in reframing narrative as both a historical and political process, enriching literary theory and cultural history by highlighting its transformative power in shaping societal structures and ideologies.

Summary of “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

Structuralism and Narrative’s Centrality:
- The article begins by highlighting the shift in literary theory when structuralism introduced a new focus on narrative in the 1970s, displacing New Criticism’s emphasis on poetry. Narrative was seen as a symbolic method for addressing cultural and ideological conflicts (Armstrong & Tennenhouse, 1993, p. 46).
- Narratives are defined as social and ideological processes capable of engaging individual creativity while simultaneously resolving collective cultural tensions (p. 46).
Poststructuralism’s Marginalization of Narrative:
- With the rise of poststructuralism, narrative analysis became marginalized, as theorists prioritized concepts like discourse, écriture, and the symbolic over traditional narrative forms (p. 47).
- Poststructuralists, such as Derrida and Foucault, avoided treating narrative as distinct, reducing it to a subcomponent of broader cultural inscriptions (p. 48).
Narrative as Intellectual Labor:
- Armstrong and Tennenhouse propose redefining narrative as a trace of intellectual labor that reconstructs and naturalizes cultural materials, granting them historical causality (p. 48).
- They argue that narrative plays a critical role in the development of modernity, serving as a medium for articulating cultural transitions and the rise of the “author” as a figure of modern power (p. 49).
Historical Causality of Writing and the Author:
- The authors examine the emergence of the author in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, arguing that this shift represents a fundamental cultural transformation. The author became central to cultural production, displacing the anonymous collectivity of writing (p. 49–50).
- This “rise of writing” parallels the development of modern individuality, consolidating the author’s role as a cultural figure while transforming narrative into a transparent window into human subjectivity (p. 51).
Critique of Traditional Historiography:
- Traditional historical accounts often render writing secondary to economic and political developments. Armstrong and Tennenhouse challenge this, emphasizing writing’s foundational role in constructing modernity (p. 52).
- They critique both structuralist and poststructuralist tendencies to devalue narrative’s ability to historicize intellectual labor, advocating for a reevaluation of its cultural and historical significance (p. 54).
Milton, Narrative, and Modernity:
- Using Paradise Lost as a case study, the authors explore how narratives like Milton’s reshaped English culture, bridging Renaissance ideals and modern middle-class humanism (p. 55).
- Milton’s work exemplifies how narratives articulate cultural shifts by transforming past symbols into tools of modern intellectual empowerment (p. 56).
Narrative’s Role in Colonial and National Identity:
- The captivity narratives of English settlers in North America illustrate how narrative constructs identity, transforming cultural dislocation into a myth of return to origins (p. 56).
- Similarly, Richardson’s novels reimagined English culture in a way that facilitated the rise of a novel-reading public, reflecting the transformation of narrative into a vehicle of modern nationalism (p. 57).
Conclusion: Challenging the Divide Between Text and Narrative:
- Armstrong and Tennenhouse argue for dismantling the distinction between text and narrative, positing that all writing inherently contains narrative elements that demand critical analysis (p. 58).
- They assert that understanding narrative as an act of intellectual labor provides new insights into modern cultural and historical developments, emphasizing its enduring relevance to literary and historical theory (p. 58).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context in the Article
Narrative	A trace of intellectual labor that organizes and naturalizes cultural materials, connecting individuals and society.	Described as a historical, political, and psychological process that articulates and reshapes cultural categories, allowing them to appear as natural or inevitable (p. 48).
Structuralism	A theoretical approach emphasizing universal structures, such as myths, to explain cultural phenomena.	Structuralism brought narrative to prominence by interpreting it as a symbolic means of solving cultural problems, but it was later supplanted by poststructuralism (p. 46).
Poststructuralism	A critique of structuralist assumptions, focusing on the instability of meaning and the role of discourse in shaping reality.	Poststructuralism marginalized narrative by emphasizing broader categories like discourse, écriture, and textuality, avoiding direct analysis of narrative’s unique contributions (p. 47).
Écriture	A French term often used in poststructuralist theory to denote the act of writing as an autonomous process.	Poststructuralists like Derrida framed écriture as foundational to meaning-making, yet they neglected how narrative functions within these broader systems (p. 48).
Discourse	A system of representation that structures and limits the production of knowledge and meaning.	Foucault’s focus on discourse overshadowed narrative, framing it as part of broader hegemonic systems rather than as a unique cultural and historical force (p. 49).
Author	A historically constructed figure whose emergence signals the rise of individualism and modern cultural authority.	Armstrong and Tennenhouse trace the appearance of the author in the 17th and 18th centuries as central to modernity, transforming narrative into a means of connecting individual consciousness with cultural and historical processes (p. 50).
Genealogy	A historical method used to trace the development of concepts and practices, emphasizing discontinuity and contingency.	Inspired by Foucault, the authors use genealogy to explore how narratives construct cultural authority and reshape historical understanding, critiquing traditional historiographical continuity (p. 54).
Symbolic	A domain of cultural meaning-making that organizes social relations and representations.	Poststructuralist theories integrate narrative into the symbolic but often fail to address how narrative uniquely structures the symbolic (p. 48).
Master Narrative	A dominant, overarching story that organizes cultural meaning and history.	Examples include the Oedipus myth or the American dream, which traditional literary criticism takes as universal truths. Poststructuralism disrupts these narratives by exposing their constructed nature (p. 48–49).
Textuality	The concept that all cultural artifacts function as texts, shaped by systems of signs and meaning.	The authors critique the tendency to reduce narrative to textuality, arguing that this approach often detaches the text from its historical and cultural production (p. 52).
Historical Causality	The idea that certain phenomena (like writing) have a causal role in shaping historical and cultural developments.	Armstrong and Tennenhouse emphasize writing and narrative as historically causal forces, challenging the traditional relegation of writing to a derivative role in history (p. 52–53).
Intellectual Labor	The process by which narratives and writing reshape cultural materials and establish new social realities.	Defined as central to the creation and transformation of cultural and historical narratives, intellectual labor is framed as a core mechanism of modernity (p. 48–49).
Imperialist Nostalgia	A longing for an imagined past that justifies and reconstructs cultural authority in new contexts.	The authors use this concept to analyze narratives like Paradise Lost and captivity accounts, which transform cultural loss into frameworks for modern authority (p. 55–56).
Supplement	Derrida’s term for the idea that writing adds to and displaces speech, revealing the instability of origins.	Armstrong and Tennenhouse apply this concept to argue that narratives supplement historical accounts, reshaping cultural materials and creating new frameworks of meaning (p. 53).
Hegemonic Formations	Power structures embedded in cultural representations and practices.	Poststructuralism’s focus on hegemony often subsumes narrative analysis, but the authors argue for narrative’s distinct role within these formations (p. 48).
Modernity	A historical period characterized by individualism, literacy, and cultural transformations.	The emergence of the author and the rise of narrative are linked to the onset of modernity, where writing plays a central role in shaping cultural and historical consciousness (p. 50).

Contribution of “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse to Literary Theory/Theories

Reframing Narrative within Poststructuralism:
- Armstrong and Tennenhouse argue for reinstating narrative as a vital element within poststructuralist frameworks, which often subordinate it to concepts like discourse, écriture, and textuality (p. 47–48).
- They highlight narrative as a unique cultural process capable of reshaping historical and ideological materials, challenging the poststructuralist tendency to marginalize its importance (p. 49).
Historical Agency of Writing and Narrative:
- The article positions writing and narrative as historically causal forces that actively shape cultural and social structures, rather than as derivative or secondary phenomena (p. 52–53).
- This perspective challenges traditional historiography and aligns with critical theories that emphasize material conditions and intellectual labor as key factors in cultural production (p. 54).
Intervention in Structuralism and Myth Analysis:
- Drawing on structuralist ideas, the authors expand the role of narrative beyond symbolic myth-solving to a mechanism of cultural transformation (p. 46).
- This redefines narrative as not only reflective of cultural problems but also as a means of introducing new cultural paradigms (p. 47).
Critique of Humanist Master Narratives:
- The work critiques the humanist reliance on master narratives (e.g., the Oedipus myth, the American dream) as universal frameworks, showing how these narratives are historically contingent and ideologically constructed (p. 48–49).
- This aligns with poststructuralist critiques of universality in humanist literary theory, particularly those of Derrida and Foucault (p. 49).
The Rise of the Author as a Cultural Figure:
- The authors connect the emergence of the author in the 17th and 18th centuries to modernity, offering a historical lens on individualism and cultural authority in literary theory (p. 50).
- This aligns with theories of authorship, such as Foucault’s “What Is an Author?” and Barthes’ “Death of the Author,” while reintroducing narrative as central to understanding this transition (p. 51).
Narrative as Intellectual Labor:
- Armstrong and Tennenhouse conceptualize narrative as a trace of intellectual labor, a process of reorganizing cultural materials to produce new social realities (p. 48).
- This contribution enriches Marxist and materialist approaches by foregrounding narrative’s active role in cultural production (p. 53).
Integration of Genealogy and Narrative Analysis:
- The authors employ Foucauldian genealogy to explore how narrative constructs cultural authority, offering a method that integrates poststructuralist historical critique with narrative analysis (p. 54).
- This creates a bridge between historical materialist and deconstructive approaches to literary and cultural studies.
Narrative and Imperialist Nostalgia:
- The concept of imperialist nostalgia is used to analyze how narratives like Paradise Lost reconstruct and transform cultural loss into modern authority (p. 55–56).
- This theoretical lens contributes to postcolonial studies, particularly in understanding how narratives negotiate identity and cultural transformation (p. 56).
Challenging the Text-Narrative Divide:
- The article challenges the distinction between text and narrative, arguing that all writing inherently contains narrative elements and thus must be analyzed through the lens of narrative theory (p. 58).
- This contribution aligns with Derrida’s concept of the supplement while extending its application to broader cultural and historical contexts (p. 53).
Narrative and Modernity:
- The authors connect narrative to the emergence of modernity, emphasizing its role in shaping cultural practices, social identities, and intellectual frameworks (p. 50–51).
- This contribution reinforces the idea that narrative is central to understanding modern cultural history, complementing theories of modernity from thinkers like Fredric Jameson and Hayden White (p. 54).

Examples of Critiques Through “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

Literary Work	Critique through the Lens of the Article	Key Concepts from the Article Applied
Paradise Lost by John Milton	– Armstrong and Tennenhouse analyze Paradise Lost as a narrative that bridges the cultural gap between Renaissance ideals and modern middle-class humanism (p. 55). – The poem is critiqued for transforming past symbols into tools for modern intellectual empowerment, articulating the fall of aristocratic culture while constructing a narrative of modern individuality.	– Narrative as Intellectual Labor: The poem exemplifies the transformation of cultural materials. – Imperialist Nostalgia: Nostalgia for an imagined aristocratic past reshapes modernity (p. 55–56).
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe	– The authors argue that Robinson Crusoe represents the narrative of self-making and isolation, aligning with the rise of modern individuality (p. 50). – This work is analyzed as a product of narrative’s role in consolidating modern capitalist and colonial ideologies.	– Modernity and the Author: The protagonist reflects the emergence of the individual as an economic and cultural subject. – Master Narratives: Aligns with the myth of progress and colonial expansion (p. 50).
Pamela by Samuel Richardson	– Richardson’s Pamela is critiqued as a narrative that reorganizes English culture into a reproducible text, shaping the rise of a novel-reading public (p. 57). – The authors highlight its role in constructing middle-class morality and redefining gender roles.	– Narrative as a Reproducible Form: The work illustrates how narratives transform speech communities into text-based cultural formations. – Rise of Writing: Writing empowers new social realities (p. 57).
Captivity Narratives (Various)	– English captivity narratives from North America are analyzed as tools for reconstructing and transforming English identity in a colonial context (p. 56). – These narratives turn dislocation into a return to an imagined originary English culture, legitimizing colonial expansion.	– Imperialist Nostalgia: These works reflect a longing for an imagined pure English past (p. 56). – Narrative as Intellectual Labor: Reconstructs identity and cultural authority in the colonial context (p. 56).

Criticism Against “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse

Overemphasis on Narrative’s Role:
- Critics may argue that Armstrong and Tennenhouse overemphasize the centrality of narrative in shaping cultural and historical processes, potentially sidelining other significant forces like economic, political, and technological developments.

Limited Engagement with Counterarguments:
- The authors primarily critique structuralist and poststructuralist theories but do not fully engage with alternative perspectives from other critical traditions, such as Marxist materialism or feminist theory, that might challenge their assertions.
Dependence on Foucauldian Frameworks:
- While innovative, their reliance on Foucauldian genealogy may limit their approach to understanding narrative’s role, as it does not account for more dynamic or dialectical relationships between narrative and other cultural practices.
Simplification of Poststructuralist Theories:
- The article could be critiqued for simplifying poststructuralist positions, such as Derrida’s concept of écriture or Foucault’s theories of discourse, potentially misrepresenting their nuanced views on narrative’s role within these frameworks.

Historical Scope and Generalizations:
- By focusing on the 17th and 18th centuries, the authors might neglect the diversity of narrative functions in other historical and cultural contexts, leading to broad generalizations about narrative’s role in modernity.
Ambiguity in Definitions:
- The definition of narrative as “intellectual labor” may be seen as overly abstract, lacking precise criteria that distinguish it from other forms of cultural and textual production.
Undermining Human Agency:
- Their emphasis on narrative as a cultural process tied to intellectual labor might be criticized for underplaying individual creativity and the role of authors as conscious agents in cultural production.

Potential Formalist Bias:
- The critique of poststructuralist formalism might inadvertently lean into a formalist approach itself by focusing predominantly on narrative structures while sidelining broader material or sociopolitical influences.
Neglect of Reader Response:
- The article does not adequately consider the role of readers and audience reception in shaping the meaning and impact of narratives, a key dimension in contemporary literary theory.
Lack of Concrete Methodology:
- While the article offers theoretical insights, it provides limited practical methodology for applying their critique of narrative to a broader range of texts or disciplines.

Representative Quotations from “History, Poststructuralism, and the Question of Narrative” by Nancy Armstrong and Leonard Tennenhouse with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Narrative is an act of articulation that makes, remakes, and naturalizes cultural materials.”	This highlights the role of narrative in shaping cultural understanding, emphasizing its creative and reconstructive nature in framing historical and social realities. It situates narrative as central to how societies construct meaning and sustain cultural norms.
“Narrative might, in other words, be called the trace of intellectual labor.”	This conceptualizes narrative as a product of intellectual effort, linking it to broader processes of cultural production and historical interpretation. It redefines narrative as an active participant in constructing knowledge rather than merely representing it.
“Writing produces its author rather than the other way around.”	This challenges traditional notions of authorship, suggesting that the act of writing shapes and constructs the identity of the author, rather than the author imparting meaning onto the text from an independent position.
“History is a narrative of origins that locates the categories of industrial cultures in the past.”	This critique of historiography argues that historical narratives often naturalize the present by anchoring it to a constructed past, shaping contemporary cultural and social orders as inevitable outcomes of historical development.
“Poststructuralism charges writing with the mysterious power to create what it presumes to represent.”	A critical observation on poststructuralist theory, this statement highlights the paradox in ascribing to writing both the power to create meaning and the inability to ground it in anything but its own operations, questioning the limits of textual autonomy.
“The rise of the author coincided with the disappearance of writing as a field of objects in its own right.”	This situates the emergence of the modern concept of the author within a historical shift where writing ceased to be seen as a tangible activity and became a transparent medium for individual expression, linking it to broader cultural changes.
“Narrative is the illusion of depth created by the text.”	Drawing from Foucault, this challenges traditional interpretations of narrative as a window into deeper truths, positing instead that narrative operates on the surface, producing coherence and causality as a rhetorical effect rather than uncovering inherent meaning.
“Modern history has been composed backward so that it can specify where something presently exists ‘came from.'”	This critiques the teleological bias of historical writing, arguing that modern historiography often retroactively imposes coherence and causality to legitimize current conditions, rather than critically examining their constructed nature.
“The story of discourse should explain how writing came to dominate cultural practices.”	This calls for a historical investigation into how writing gained its centrality in modern culture, emphasizing the need to connect the dominance of textual practices with broader social, political, and economic transformations.
“Writing displaces speech and relocates the early modern speech community further into the past with each replication.”	This articulates a process by which writing continually redefines cultural origins, portraying each act of writing as distancing society from its perceived authentic past, reshaping collective identity through textual production.

“Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff: Summary and Critique

“Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff first appeared in SubStance (Vol. 36, No. 2, Issue 113: The Future of Anarchism, 2007), published by the University of Wisconsin Press.

Introduction: “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff

“Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff first appeared in SubStance (Vol. 36, No. 2, Issue 113: The Future of Anarchism, 2007), published by the University of Wisconsin Press. This seminal work explores the intersections between classical anarchist thought and poststructuralist philosophy, particularly critiquing Todd May’s concept of “post-anarchism.” Antliff delves into the historical and philosophical roots of anarchism, revisiting key figures like Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, and Michael Bakunin to challenge the poststructuralist framing of classical anarchism as naive or overly humanist. Instead, he argues that classical anarchism’s understanding of power as a socially embedded and generative force is both sophisticated and actionable. The essay underscores the importance of integrating anarchist principles with critiques of domination, offering a compelling counter-narrative to the claims of poststructuralist theorists like May. Antliff’s analysis enriches literary theory by bridging political philosophy and anarchist praxis, advocating for a nuanced reevaluation of power dynamics in both historical and contemporary contexts. This work remains vital for scholars exploring the evolution of anarchism and its implications for socio-political critique.

Summary of “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff

Poststructuralist Anarchism and Its Critique of Oppression
Allan Antliff explores Todd May’s foundational work on poststructuralist anarchism, which critiques oppression as a dispersed social phenomenon rather than a centralized structure. May contrasts anarchism’s nuanced understanding of domination with Marxism, arguing that Marxism’s reliance on hierarchical power limits its potential for addressing societal inequalities (Antliff, 2007, p. 49).
Limitations of Classical Anarchism According to Poststructuralism
May contends that classical anarchism, rooted in a “humanist” conception of inherent goodness, lacks a constructive theory of power. He suggests poststructuralist anarchism transcends this limitation by recognizing power as both productive and tactical (p. 62).

Revisiting Classical Anarchism’s Conception of Power
Antliff refutes May’s claims, demonstrating that classical anarchists like Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, and Michael Bakunin viewed power as generative and integrated into social and moral liberation. Kropotkin, for instance, argued for a morality based on the unceasing critique of social norms, framing power as essential to achieving individual and collective liberation (p. 113).
Anarchism’s Situated Politics and Social Critique
Goldman emphasized anarchism’s focus on dismantling oppressive structures, including religion, capitalism, and government, to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and individual differentiation (p. 62). This political framework rejects static moral absolutes and encourages the proliferation of diverse social identities and values.
The Creative and Destructive Dynamics of Power
Bakunin famously described power as inherently creative and destructive, a duality vital for individual freedom and collective equality. He argued that liberty thrives in mutual recognition and the socialization of property, contrasting sharply with the hierarchical models of Marxism (p. 267).

Poststructuralist Oversight of Anarchist Theoretical Depth
Antliff criticizes poststructuralist anarchists like Saul Newman for misrepresenting classical anarchism as disconnected from societal power dynamics. He attributes this oversight to a genealogy of thought influenced by structuralism and Marxism, which underestimated the anarchist critique of hierarchical power (p. 120).
Historical Evidence of Anarchism’s Practical Application
Antliff highlights the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups during the Russian Revolution as an example of anarchism in practice. Guided by Stirner’s egoist philosophy, the Federation implemented horizontal power structures and voluntary associations, countering the centralized authority of the Communist regime (p. 179).
Stirner’s Egoism and Its Revolutionary Implications
Max Stirner’s concept of egoism, emphasizing individual self-determination and rejection of abstract principles, deeply influenced anarchist thought. Stirner’s critique of state authority and hierarchical morality informed the Federation’s insurgent practices and its commitment to perpetual resistance (p. 453).

Anarchism’s Alternative Theorization of Power and Freedom
Antliff concludes that classical anarchism offers a robust framework for understanding power as socially situated and intrinsically linked to liberation. Unlike poststructuralist critiques, anarchist theory integrates materialist, individualist, and social dimensions of freedom, providing a historical basis for its claims (p. 490).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Source/Reference in Text
Poststructuralist Anarchism	A theoretical approach combining anarchist political philosophy with poststructuralist critiques of power and domination.	Explored in Todd May’s work and critiqued by Antliff (Antliff, 2007, pp. 49-62).
Power as Generative	The idea that power is not solely oppressive but can be a source of creativity, self-expression, and social liberation.	Emphasized by classical anarchists like Kropotkin and Bakunin (Antliff, 2007, pp. 113, 267).
Critique of Representation	The rejection of hierarchical and representational forms of politics that distance leaders from the people they represent.	Central to classical anarchism’s anti-authoritarian ethos (Antliff, 2007, p. 50).
Humanism in Classical Anarchism	A contested concept; May criticizes classical anarchism as reliant on the notion of inherent human goodness.	Critiqued by May; refuted through Goldman’s and Kropotkin’s situated politics (Antliff, 2007, pp. 62, 113).
Egoism	Stirner’s philosophy advocating individual self-determination and rejection of external authorities and absolute truths.	Detailed in Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own and its influence on the Moscow Federation (Antliff, 2007, p. 453).
Morality as Social Construct	The view that moral norms are not absolute but arise from social and historical contexts, subject to continual critique.	Kropotkin’s and Stirner’s anarchist morality theories (Antliff, 2007, pp. 113, 108).
Insurrection vs. Revolution	Stirner’s distinction: revolutions change who holds power, while insurrections reject domination altogether.	Discussed in Stirner’s critique of hierarchical power (Antliff, 2007, p. 453).
Horizontal Power Structures	Organizational models that distribute power equally among participants rather than centralizing it.	Practiced by the Moscow Federation during the Russian Revolution (Antliff, 2007, p. 179).
Anarchist Subjectivity	The anarchist idea of individuality as a process of self-liberation intertwined with collective freedom.	Explored in Bakunin’s and Goldman’s works (Antliff, 2007, pp. 267, 62).
Poststructuralist Critique of Humanism	The rejection of the Enlightenment subject as autonomous and self-contained, influential in poststructuralism.	Rooted in the structuralist critique and adopted by figures like Saul Newman (Antliff, 2007, p. 120).

Contribution of “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critique of Representational Politics in Narrative Theory

Antliff critiques hierarchical representational structures, which aligns with poststructuralist critiques of representation in literature.

This view informs how power relations in literary narratives can be deconstructed to reveal domination and exclusion mechanisms (Antliff, 2007, p. 50).

2. Power as a Generative Force in Postmodern Narratives

By reframing power as generative rather than solely oppressive, the work contributes to theories that view narrative structure and language as dynamic and evolving.

This insight supports literary theories that examine texts as sites of creativity and self-expression, reflecting pluralistic social dynamics (Antliff, 2007, p. 113).

3. Posthumanist Ethics and Decentered Subjectivity in Texts

Antliff challenges May’s poststructuralist framing of classical anarchism as humanist, offering an alternative view of subjectivity that is decentered and pluralistic.

This resonates with posthumanist literary theory, which critiques the unified, autonomous subject and explores fragmented identities in texts (Antliff, 2007, p. 62).

4. The Anarchist Lens on Ideological Critique in Texts

The article’s discussion of morality as a social construct aligns with ideological critique in literary theory, especially Marxist and poststructuralist approaches.

Anarchist readings of texts can focus on challenging dominant norms and uncovering alternative visions of societal organization (Antliff, 2007, pp. 108, 113).

5. The Narrative of Insurrection in Revolutionary Literature

The distinction between revolution and insurrection sheds light on how literature portrays acts of resistance and transformation.

This can guide analysis of revolutionary narratives that emphasize grassroots, decentralized struggles over top-down power shifts (Antliff, 2007, p. 453).

6. Interplay of Power, Morality, and Freedom in Literary Characters

Antliff’s interpretation of Kropotkin’s and Stirner’s theories suggests new ways to explore characters who navigate power dynamics and moral ambiguities.

This contributes to ethical literary criticism, particularly in works that address liberation and domination (Antliff, 2007, pp. 108, 453).

7. Influence of Nietzschean Philosophy on Anarchist Narratives

The linkage between Nietzschean philosophy and anarchist morality highlights overlaps with literary theories influenced by Nietzsche, such as deconstruction and existentialism.

This underscores how texts engage with themes of power, individual agency, and the rejection of absolutes (Antliff, 2007, p. 109).

8. Horizontal Power and Decentralized Structures in Literary Forms

The discussion of anarchist organizational models inspires literary analyses of non-hierarchical structures in narrative forms, such as fragmented or polyphonic storytelling.

This aligns with Bakhtin’s theories of dialogism and heteroglossia (Antliff, 2007, p. 179).

9. Theoretical Grounding for Libertarian Critiques in Literature

Antliff’s reassertion of classical anarchism as a viable framework for critique can underpin libertarian perspectives in analyzing texts that resist authoritarianism and celebrate autonomy.

This is particularly relevant to dystopian and utopian literary traditions (Antliff, 2007, pp. 267, 490).

Examples of Critiques Through “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff

Literary Work	Critique Through Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism	Key References from Antliff
George Orwell’s 1984	– Analyze the hierarchical and oppressive power structures in the Party as examples of representational politics that anarchism seeks to dismantle. – Explore Winston’s resistance as an insurrectional act rejecting centralized power.	Critique of representational politics (Antliff, 2007, p. 50). Insurrection vs. revolution (p. 453).
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World	– Critique the morality of the World State as a constructed system of domination, echoing Kropotkin’s emphasis on challenging societal norms. – Examine the characters’ struggles for individuality within a collectivist, oppressive system.	Morality as a social construct (Antliff, 2007, p. 113). Generative power of individuality (p. 108).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	– Explore Sethe’s reclaiming of her narrative as an act of anarchist self-determination, challenging societal oppressions like racism and slavery. – Examine the fragmented storytelling as reflective of horizontal power structures.	Decentralized structures and horizontal power (Antliff, 2007, p. 179). Generative force of power (p. 113).
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein	– Critique Victor’s attempt to impose absolute knowledge and control over life as a violation of Stirner’s rejection of abstract truths. – Analyze the creature’s struggle for self-identity and liberation as anarchist resistance.	Stirner’s egoism and critique of absolute truths (Antliff, 2007, pp. 453, 490). Individual liberation (p. 62).

Criticism Against “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff

1. Overreliance on Classical Anarchist Texts

Antliff’s heavy reliance on classical anarchists like Kropotkin and Stirner may limit engagement with more contemporary anarchist perspectives that address modern political contexts.

This approach might appear nostalgic, overlooking advancements in post-anarchist scholarship.

2. Limited Engagement with Poststructuralist Nuances

The critique of Todd May and other poststructuralist theorists could be seen as reductive, simplifying their arguments to set up a binary opposition with classical anarchism.

Antliff does not fully engage with the depth and potential adaptability of poststructuralist anarchism.

3. Neglect of Intersectionality in Power Analysis

The essay does not address how anarchist theories interact with intersectional frameworks that explore power along axes of race, gender, and class.

This omission may weaken the applicability of the theories to broader contemporary social justice movements.

4. Underdeveloped Literary Application

Although Antliff’s work touches on narrative and representation, it does not explicitly connect these insights to literary theory or specific literary works.

This leaves the theoretical discussion abstract, without demonstrating its practical value in analyzing texts.

5. Lack of Empirical Examples Beyond Historical Anarchism

The reliance on historical examples, such as the Russian anarchist movement, might make the critique feel dated and less relevant to modern anarchist practices and cultural phenomena.

6. Simplification of Marxism in Contrast to Anarchism

Antliff’s critique of Marxism may oversimplify its nuanced approaches to power and class, presenting it as monolithic and overly hierarchical.
This risks alienating readers who see value in integrating Marxist and anarchist perspectives.

7. Insufficient Exploration of Post-Anarchism’s Contributions

The dismissal of post-anarchism as lacking depth might ignore its valuable contributions, such as the integration of Foucauldian critiques of power and Deleuzian multiplicities.
This limits the scope of the article’s critical engagement.

8. Potential Overemphasis on Philosophical Rigidity

The focus on defending classical anarchism’s philosophical rigor could alienate readers looking for practical solutions to contemporary political challenges.

9. Ambiguity in Practical Application of Power Theory

While the essay effectively critiques hierarchical power, it does not provide clear pathways for implementing anarchist theories of power in modern political, cultural, or literary contexts.

Representative Quotations from “Anarchy, Power, and Poststructuralism” by Allan Antliff with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Anarchism interrogated relations of domination with the goal of destroying all representational forms of power.” (p. 50)	This emphasizes anarchism’s opposition to hierarchical and representational politics, a concept central to its critique of systems of power.
“The anarchist project, he argued, is based on a fallacious ‘humanist’ notion that ‘the human essence is a good essence, which relations of power suppress and deny.'” (p. 62)	This critiques classical anarchism’s perceived reliance on a humanist framework, suggesting a theoretical limitation that poststructuralist anarchism seeks to overcome.
“Goldman critiques religion for oppressing us psychologically, capitalist economics for endangering our corporal well-being, and government for shutting down our freedoms.” (p. 62)	This encapsulates anarchism’s multifaceted critique of domination, offering a foundation for understanding liberation across psychological, physical, and social dimensions.
“Kropotkin’s subject, who exercises power by shaping her own values to accord with a ‘superabundance’ of life, is antithetical to May’s claim regarding ‘classic’ anarchism.” (p. 108)	This disputes the portrayal of classical anarchism as lacking a nuanced conception of power, highlighting Kropotkin’s generative view of individual agency.
“The destructive urge is also a creative urge.” (p. 267)	Bakunin’s famous declaration underlines anarchism’s paradoxical approach to power, where dismantling oppressive systems is inherently tied to creating new, freer social orders.
“Morality entailed the unceasing interrogation of existing social norms, in recognition that morals are social constructs, and there are no absolutes guiding ethical behavior.” (p. 113)	This reflects the anarchist rejection of absolute truths, aligning with poststructuralist critiques of fixed morality in favor of fluid, contextual ethics.
“The insurgent strives to be constitutionless.” (p. 453)	Stirner’s notion of insurrection challenges traditional revolutionary goals, promoting perpetual resistance and individual sovereignty over abstract systems of power.
“The poststructuralist anarchist would shed the husk of humanism, the better to exercise power ‘tactically’ within an ethical practice guided by Habermas’s universalist theory of communicative action.” (p. 146)	This outlines poststructuralist anarchism’s evolution, focusing on tactical engagement with power and ethical dialogue rather than overarching ideological frameworks.
“Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” (p. 269)	Bakunin’s synthesis of freedom and socialism critiques both unbridled individualism and state-centric socialism, providing a balanced framework for anarchist theory.
“If labor becomes free, the state is lost.” (p. 152)	Stirner’s argument links liberation of labor to the dissolution of the state, connecting anarchist critiques of capitalism with anti-statist principles.

“Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss: Summary and Critique

“Poststructuralism and the ‘Paraliterary'” by Rosalind Krauss first appeared in the journal October (Vol. 13, Summer 1980, pp. 36-40) and was published by The MIT Press.

Introduction: “Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss

“Poststructuralism and the ‘Paraliterary'” by Rosalind Krauss first appeared in the journal October (Vol. 13, Summer 1980, pp. 36-40) and was published by The MIT Press. In this seminal piece, Krauss engages with the profound influence of poststructuralist theory on literature, focusing particularly on the works of Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes. She introduces the concept of the “paraliterary,” a space where the traditional boundaries between literature and criticism dissolve, giving rise to hybrid forms that defy conventional literary norms. Krauss critiques the broader literary establishment’s resistance to this shift, emphasizing the subversion of unified narratives and authorship in favor of fragmented, multi-voiced expressions. This article is significant for its incisive analysis of how poststructuralist thought destabilizes entrenched literary practices and offers a new lens for interpreting texts. By highlighting the interplay of cultural codes and the “already-written,” Krauss not only sheds light on the evolution of critical theory but also its enduring relevance in understanding postmodern literature.

Summary of “Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss

Introduction to the ‘Paraliterary’

The article introduces the term “paraliterary” as a form of writing where boundaries between literature and criticism blur (Krauss, 1980, p. 36).

Inspired by poststructuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes, the paraliterary destabilizes traditional notions of authorship, coherence, and literary unity (p. 38).

Theoretical Context

Krauss situates her discussion in response to criticism from literary establishments accusing poststructuralism of undermining “close reading” and academic criticism (p. 36).

Critics like Morris Dickstein see poststructuralist theory as a threat to traditional literature, reflecting a broader institutional resistance (p. 37).

Key Contributions of Derrida and Barthes

Jacques Derrida:
- In his lecture “Restitutions,” Derrida exemplifies the paraliterary by using a voice that theatrically interrupts his discourse, demonstrating the interplay of levels, styles, and fragmented perspectives (p. 37).
- This dramatization, Krauss argues, borrows techniques historically confined to literature, subverting conventional philosophical discourse (p. 38).
Roland Barthes:
- Works like The Pleasure of the Text and S/Z merge literary creativity with critical exploration, creating a hybrid form that challenges clear categorization (p. 38).
- Barthes emphasizes “stereographic space,” where texts are systems of interwoven cultural codes and clichés, displacing the primacy of authorial intent or “denotation” (p. 39).

Features of the Paraliterary

Fragmentation and Multi-Voicedness:
- The paraliterary is characterized by “voices without the Author” and “criticism without the Argument,” rejecting unity or resolution (p. 38).
Critique of Traditional Realism:
- Barthes contends that realism merely copies other representations of reality, creating a “pastiche” rather than an authentic imitation (p. 39).
Opposition to Formalism:
- Contrary to formalism’s focus on uncovering textual meanings, Barthes and Derrida reject the idea of a stable, underlying truth in literature (p. 39).

Resistance and Reception

The wider literary establishment remains resistant to poststructuralist theory, seeing it as inaccessible and incompatible with traditional critical practice (p. 40).
However, graduate students and readers of postmodernism embrace paraliterary works, recognizing their relevance in an era marked by the collapse of modernist literature (p. 40).

Impact and Legacy

The paraliterary reflects postmodernism’s demand for critical texts to engage readers as co-creators of meaning.
Barthes and Derrida emerge as central figures in this shift, redefining literary criticism as a creative, critical act (p. 40).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss

Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference in Text
Paraliterary	A hybrid form of writing that dissolves the boundaries between literature and criticism, incorporating multiple voices.	Krauss (1980), p. 36.
Stereographic Space	The interplay of cultural codes and clichés within a text, creating layers of meaning without a single denotational origin.	Barthes’s concept as explained by Krauss, p. 39.
Denotation and Connotation	The reversal of the traditional hierarchy where denotation is seen as foundational, with Barthes arguing connotation generates denotation.	Krauss (1980), p. 39.
Fragmentation	The breakdown of unified narratives, emphasizing multiplicity and diversity of voices within the text.	Krauss (1980), p. 38.
De-Origination	The process by which texts reject a singular origin or authorial intent, instead embracing intertextuality and cultural codes.	Krauss (1980), p. 39.
Pastiche	Realism as a reproduction of existing representations rather than an authentic depiction of reality.	Barthes’s critique of realism, p. 39.
Technocratization	The institutionalization of advanced critical theories within academic settings, seen as a barrier to wider cultural impact.	Critique of Dickstein’s views on poststructuralism, p. 37.
Multiplicity of Meanings	The rejection of extracting singular meanings, emphasizing the coexistence of diverse interpretations within a text.	Barthes’s approach in S/Z, p. 39.
Cultural Codes	Pre-existing stereotypes, clichés, and conventions within a culture that inform the construction and reading of texts.	Barthes’s analysis in S/Z, as discussed by Krauss, p. 39.
Critical Text as Literature	The redefinition of literary criticism as a creative act, merging it with literary writing.	Barthes’s works like The Pleasure of the Text, p. 38.

Contribution of “Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss to Literary Theory/Theories

Blurring the Boundary Between Literature and Criticism

Krauss highlights how poststructuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes redefine the relationship between literature and criticism, creating a hybrid genre called the “paraliterary” (Krauss, 1980, p. 36).
This redefinition challenges traditional distinctions, positioning criticism itself as a creative act rather than merely an analytical one, reshaping how texts are approached within literary theory.

Introduction of Fragmentation and Multi-Voiced Narratives

Krauss emphasizes the fragmented nature of poststructuralist texts, where coherence and unity give way to a multiplicity of voices and perspectives (p. 38).
By rejecting a singular authorial intent, the paraliterary encourages an intertextual approach, aligning with poststructuralist theories of decentered meaning and textual plurality (p. 39).

Critique of Formalism and Traditional Realism

Poststructuralism’s challenge to formalism is foregrounded in Krauss’s discussion, particularly through Barthes’s work in S/Z. Barthes dismisses the idea that texts have inherent meanings to be “extracted,” critiquing formalist close reading as reductive (p. 39).
Similarly, Barthes redefines realism as “pastiche,” arguing that it imitates representations of reality rather than reality itself, which resonates with theories critiquing mimetic art forms (p. 39).

Reversal of Denotation and Connotation Hierarchies

Krauss underscores Barthes’s radical claim that denotation (literal meaning) is not foundational but rather the final layer of connotation, challenging long-held assumptions in semiotics and literary interpretation (p. 39).
This insight aligns with structuralist and poststructuralist emphases on the constructed nature of meaning, influencing later theories in deconstruction and cultural studies.

Expanding the Role of Cultural Codes in Texts

The article expands literary theory’s understanding of texts as systems of cultural codes, stereotypes, and clichés that shape how meaning is produced and interpreted (p. 39).
This approach shifts focus from individual creativity to cultural systems, advancing structuralist ideas of language and cultural production and integrating them into poststructuralist frameworks.

Destabilizing the Concept of the Author

By emphasizing “de-origination,” Krauss affirms poststructuralist critiques of authorship, wherein the author is not the origin of meaning but a function within textual and cultural systems (p. 39).
This perspective directly engages with Roland Barthes’s famous essay The Death of the Author and Derrida’s deconstructive strategies, deepening their theoretical implications.

Redefining Literary Criticism as a Creative Text

Krauss illustrates how poststructuralism transforms criticism into a performative and literary act, merging the analytical with the artistic. This reconceptualization broadens the scope of literary theory, encouraging innovative forms of critical engagement (p. 38).
The shift exemplified by Barthes and Derrida situates literary theory within the broader intellectual movement of postmodernism, contributing to its interdisciplinary appeal.

Impact on Postmodern Literary Practice

Krauss connects the rise of the paraliterary to the collapse of modernist literature, noting its resonance with postmodernism’s emphasis on reflexivity and the constructedness of art (p. 40).
This linkage situates her work as a pivotal contribution to understanding the transition from modernist to postmodernist literary practices.

Examples of Critiques Through “Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss

Literary Work	Critique Using Poststructuralism and the Paraliterary	Key Concepts from Krauss
Sarrasine by Honoré de Balzac	Barthes critiques the notion of denotation as primary, arguing that the “already-written” cultural codes (e.g., stereotypes about beauty and gender) shape meaning.	Stereographic space; Denotation as the last connotation (Krauss, 1980, p. 39).
The Pleasure of the Text by Roland Barthes	Barthes’s work blurs the line between criticism and literature, creating a hybrid form where the text itself becomes an act of writing about writing.	Paraliterary as a genre; Fragmentation and multi-voiced narratives (p. 38).
Restitutions by Jacques Derrida	Derrida uses a fragmented narrative style, including interruptions by a “woman’s voice,” to theatricalize critical discourse, critiquing linear philosophical exposition.	Multi-voiced narrative; Theatricalization of critical writing (p. 37).
Modern Realist Novels (General)	Barthes critiques realism for being “pastiche,” arguing that it replicates representations rather than reality itself, challenging its claim to authenticity.	Pastiche; Rejection of realism as mimetic art (p. 39).

Criticism Against “Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss

Elitism and Accessibility

Critics argue that Krauss’s discussion of the “paraliterary” reflects an elitist perspective, as the concepts and theories presented are highly abstract and inaccessible to general readers.
Theoretical jargon and references to Derrida and Barthes can alienate audiences unfamiliar with poststructuralist discourse.

Neglect of Practical Criticism

Krauss’s emphasis on the paraliterary undermines traditional methods of practical criticism, such as close reading and textual analysis, which remain foundational in literary studies.
By rejecting systematic approaches, the article risks dismissing methods valued for their rigor and clarity.

Overemphasis on Theory

The focus on poststructuralist theory at the expense of broader literary practices limits the scope of Krauss’s argument, neglecting other critical frameworks and their contributions.
Some critics suggest this creates a theoretical echo chamber, where only poststructuralist perspectives are legitimized.

Critique of Fragmentation

The privileging of fragmented, multi-voiced narratives over unified texts is seen by some as an undermining of the coherence and communicative power of literature.
Detractors argue that this approach risks reducing texts to mere collections of cultural codes without room for individual creativity or originality.

Cultural Relativism

The rejection of fixed meanings and denotation in favor of cultural codes and connotations invites accusations of cultural relativism, where all interpretations are equally valid, potentially leading to interpretive anarchy.
This stance is criticized for disregarding the possibility of universal themes or truths in literature.

Institutional Disconnect

Krauss acknowledges the limited impact of poststructuralist theory on broader literary establishments, but critics view this as a failure to bridge theoretical innovation with practical application in the literary field.
The gap between poststructuralist theory and mainstream criticism highlights its limited influence outside academia.

Undermining of Realism

The critique of realism as “pastiche” is viewed as overly reductive, dismissing its ability to engage with social and political realities in meaningful ways.
Realist works are argued to provide valuable insights that transcend their supposed replication of pre-existing representations.

Resistance to Authorship

The dismissal of the author’s role as a source of meaning faces criticism for neglecting the intentional and creative processes behind literary works.
Critics argue that this undermines the individuality and artistry of authorship, reducing texts to impersonal cultural constructs.

Representative Quotations from “Poststructuralism and the “Paraliterary” by Rosalind Krauss with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The paraliterary space is the space of debate, quotation, partisanship, betrayal, reconciliation; but it is not the space of unity, coherence, or resolution that we think of as constituting the work of literature.” (p. 38)	Krauss defines the “paraliterary” as a fragmented and dynamic domain, contrasting it with traditional literature’s emphasis on coherence and resolution. This challenges the foundational assumptions of literary unity, emphasizing multiplicity and discontinuity in poststructuralist texts.
“Denotation is no more than the last of the connotations (the one which seems both to establish and to close the reading).” (p. 39)	This quotation encapsulates Barthes’s reversal of traditional semiotics, arguing that what is perceived as denotation (literal meaning) is constructed by layers of cultural connotations. This undermines the hierarchy that positions denotation as primary and connotation as secondary in literary interpretation.
“To depict is to unroll the carpet of the codes, to refer not from a language to a referent, but from one code to another.” (p. 39)	Barthes critiques realism by describing it as a process of referencing pre-existing codes rather than reality itself. This challenges the idea of literature as mimetic and aligns with poststructuralist views that texts are intertextual, constructed from cultural systems rather than individual representation.
“Writing sets up the pretense that denotation is the first meaning, but for Barthes, denotation is the last block to be put in place.” (p. 39)	This reinforces the constructed nature of meaning in texts, where what seems foundational (denotation) is actually an effect of prior cultural coding. This challenges readers to interrogate the assumptions behind what appears to be “natural” or “obvious” in literary works.
“Criticism without the Argument… voices without the Author.” (p. 38)	Krauss highlights the paraliterary’s rejection of traditional criticism and authorship. By embracing multiplicity and decentering the author, poststructuralist texts create new forms of engagement that defy conventional expectations of structured argument and singular voice.
“Realism consists not in copying the real but in copying a (depicted) copy of the real.” (p. 39)	This statement critiques realism as derivative and self-referential rather than an authentic representation of reality. Barthes’s notion of “pastiche” disrupts the traditional view of realism, emphasizing its reliance on prior cultural representations rather than objective truth.
“Nothing is buried that must be ‘extracted’; it is all part of the surface of the text.” (p. 39)	Krauss reflects Barthes’s argument that meaning is not hidden beneath the text but is evident on its surface, constructed by cultural codes. This opposes the formalist approach of uncovering hidden meanings and redefines the act of reading as engaging with surface interrelations rather than depth analysis.
“What is created, as in the case of much of Derrida, is a kind of paraliterature.” (p. 38)	This emphasizes the innovative form of Derrida’s and Barthes’s writings, which blur the boundaries between criticism and literature. The “paraliterary” genre disrupts expectations, turning theoretical critique into an act of creative production, merging the two realms.
“The painstaking, almost hallucinatory slowness with which Barthes proceeds through the text of Sarrasine provides an extraordinary demonstration of this chattering of voices which is that of the codes at work.” (p. 39)	Krauss praises Barthes’s meticulous analysis of Sarrasine, illustrating how texts are constructed through a multiplicity of intersecting codes. This showcases poststructuralist methods in action, focusing on textual interrelations rather than singular meanings.
“To take the demonstration of the de-originated utterance seriously would obviously put a large segment of the critical establishment out of business.” (p. 40)	Krauss critiques traditional criticism for its resistance to poststructuralist theories that challenge the foundational concepts of authorship and originality. She argues that these innovations threaten the viability of conventional critical approaches, highlighting the institutional inertia against adopting poststructuralist ideas.

“Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough: Summary and Critique

“Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough first appeared in Theory and Society in August 1992, published by Springer.

Introduction: “Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough

“Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough first appeared in Theory and Society in August 1992, published by Springer. Clough explores the intersections and tensions between poststructuralist theory, deconstruction, and postmodern ethnography, particularly critiquing the ways in which these paradigms challenge empirical social science and realism. She delves into how poststructuralism disrupts traditional Marxist frameworks by emphasizing psychoanalysis and the processes of unconscious desire, offering a critique of the totalizing tendencies within realist narrativity. Importantly, Clough highlights the ambivalence within postmodern ethnography, which, while aiming to transcend traditional scientific paradigms, risks reifying empirical positivities through its focus on subjectivity and multicultural identities. This paper is pivotal in literary and sociological theory as it reinforces the need for a critical re-reading of cultural narratives, urging scholars to scrutinize the power dynamics embedded in knowledge production and representation. Through this lens, Clough not only critiques realism but also offers a framework for understanding the discursive construction of authority in social sciences and cultural criticism.

Summary of “Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough

Postmodern Ethnography and Its Ambivalence

Postmodern ethnography is critiqued for its limited response to the radical challenges posed by poststructuralism and deconstructive criticism (Clough, 1992, p. 543).

Clough identifies Michael Peter Smith’s interpretation of postmodern ethnography as emphasizing the interplay of local and global discourses, but she highlights its failure to deeply interrogate the subject’s authority and cultural identity (p. 544).
Postmodern ethnography, as described, tends to valorize subjectivity and experience but often neglects deeper psychoanalytic and deconstructive engagements, leading to an ambivalent critique of realism (p. 547).

Poststructuralism’s Challenge to Marxism

Poststructuralism critiques Althusserian Marxism, focusing on deferral, displacement, and condensation, which shifts the analysis toward psychoanalysis and away from the totalizing narratives of Marxism (p. 545).
It rejects essentialist and teleological perspectives, instead engaging with unconscious processes and desire as central to the construction of identity and culture (p. 546).

Deconstruction and Ethnography

Clough explores deconstruction as a tool to critique the construction of realism in ethnography. She argues that realist narratives often mask the processes of substitution and projection, constructing authority and empirical “truth” through invisible mechanisms of power and desire (p. 548).
Postmodern ethnography’s reliance on experiential narratives is seen as insufficient because it fails to interrogate these deeper dynamics (p. 550).

Authority and Realism

Realist narrativity is criticized for its “double inscription,” where it simultaneously claims empirical objectivity and engages in discursive construction (p. 548).
Clough aligns with thinkers like Homi Bhabha to reveal how realism enacts displacements of desire, often under the guise of transparency (p. 547).

The Role of Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis, particularly as revisited through poststructuralism, becomes a method to unravel the unconscious desires underpinning discourses of power and identity (p. 545).
Clough emphasizes that cultural criticism must account for these processes to move beyond surface-level analyses of subjectivity and identity (p. 546).

Critique of Cultural Logics

Clough critiques cultural logics that prioritize difference over duality without exploring the unconscious dynamics of “othering” and identity formation (p. 546).
She advocates for a poststructural cultural criticism that exposes the itineraries of desire within knowledge and power systems (p. 550).

Multiculturalism and Subjectivity

Postmodern ethnography, according to Clough, risks reducing multicultural subjectivities to simplistic narratives that align too closely with traditional realism (p. 549).
True cultural criticism, she suggests, should interrogate the unconscious foundations of identity rather than merely celebrating border transgressions (p. 550).

Conclusion: The Need for Radical Critique

Clough calls for a radical poststructural approach that challenges both scientific empiricism and cultural essentialism, emphasizing the critical role of psychoanalysis and deconstruction in uncovering hidden desires and power structures (p. 552).
Such an approach redefines the aims of cultural criticism, situating it as a transformative practice capable of addressing the complexities of identity, realism, and authority in the postmodern age.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Relevance in Clough’s Argument
Poststructuralism	A theoretical approach emphasizing the instability of meaning, the role of language in shaping reality, and the critique of totalizing narratives.	Used to critique Marxism, realism, and essentialist interpretations, while advocating for an understanding of identity and authority as constructed through unconscious processes (Clough, 1992, p. 545).
Deconstruction	A critical methodology, developed by Jacques Derrida, that interrogates binary oppositions, defers meaning, and exposes the contradictions within texts.	Applied to critique the realist narratives in ethnography and cultural criticism, revealing their reliance on invisible mechanisms of desire and authority (p. 548).
Psychoanalysis	A theoretical framework, particularly Lacanian psychoanalysis, that explores unconscious processes, desire, and subjectivity in language and identity.	Central to poststructuralism’s critique of realism and Marxism; used to analyze how unconscious desire shapes discursive constructions of identity and authority (p. 545).
Realist Narrativity	The narrative structure that claims empirical objectivity while masking its own constructed nature.	Critiqued for its “double inscription,” where it presents itself as both fact and discursive construction, concealing the role of desire in constructing authority (p. 548).
Multicultural Subjectivity	The representation of subjectivity as shaped by intersections of race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality in a multicultural framework.	Clough critiques postmodern ethnography for oversimplifying subjectivity, failing to address unconscious dynamics, and relying on realist methodologies (p. 549).
Difference vs. Duality	The poststructural critique of binary oppositions (duality) in favor of understanding multiplicities and deferrals of meaning (difference).	Clough emphasizes the importance of deconstructing oppositions, arguing that difference cannot simply replace duality without addressing unconscious processes like “othering” (p. 546).
Authorial Desire	The projection of unconscious desires onto the “author” or subject within discourses of knowledge and authority.	Used to critique the authority embedded in realist narratives and scientific knowledge, revealing how these are shaped by projections and displacements of desire (p. 547).
Ethnography	A research methodology traditionally associated with anthropology, focused on studying cultures and identities through observation and narrative.	Postmodern ethnography is critiqued for its reliance on realist narrativity and its ambivalence toward poststructural deconstruction, as it often fails to address unconscious processes (p. 547).
Knowledge/Power	A concept from Foucault emphasizing how knowledge systems are inherently tied to structures of power.	Clough applies this to critique how scientific and cultural narratives construct authority and truth through relations of power and unconscious desire (p. 546).
Differance	Derrida’s concept describing the simultaneous deferral and differentiation of meaning within language and identity.	Highlighted as a critical process for understanding the persistence of “othering” and unconscious dynamics in identity construction, which are often ignored in postmodern ethnography (p. 546).
Scientificity	The perceived objectivity and authority of science, often critiqued in poststructuralism for its reliance on constructed discourses.	Clough critiques the “will to scientificity” in both social sciences and realist narratives, arguing for a critical engagement with science as a constructed form of knowledge (p. 550).
Global and Local	The interplay between global systems of power and local cultural identities, often explored in postmodern ethnography.	Postmodern ethnography’s focus on the “local” is critiqued for neglecting the broader psychoanalytic and deconstructive implications of identity formation (p. 544).

Contribution of “Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Poststructuralism

Clough integrates poststructuralist principles, particularly the critique of totalizing narratives and essentialism, into literary theory (p. 545).
Highlights the importance of unconscious processes like displacement and condensation, emphasizing the fluidity of meaning in texts and cultural narratives (p. 546).
Extends poststructuralism to critique the authority of realist narrativity in literature and social sciences, revealing its constructed nature (p. 548).

2. Deconstruction

Clough applies Derrida’s deconstructive method to realism, exposing the “double inscription” of narratives that present themselves as both factual and discursive (p. 548).
Emphasizes differance as a tool to understand the dynamics of “othering” and identity formation in textual and cultural representations (p. 546).

Advocates for a deconstructive literary critique that unravels the unconscious desire embedded in narratives of authority (p. 550).

3. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

Incorporates Lacanian psychoanalysis into poststructural criticism, focusing on how unconscious desire and sexual difference shape language and identity (p. 545).

Critiques realism in literature and social sciences as a projection of authorial desire, demonstrating how texts construct authority through fantasies of unified subjectivity (p. 547).

4. Feminist Literary Theory

Draws on feminist critiques of Marxism and psychoanalysis to explore the intersections of gender, sexuality, and unconscious processes in cultural texts (p. 545).

Advocates for a feminist materialist analysis of language and identity that resists essentialist or biologistic interpretations (p. 546).

5. Postmodern Ethnography

Critiques the reliance of postmodern ethnography on realist narratives, suggesting it overlooks the unconscious dynamics of identity and cultural authority (p. 549).

Contributes to postmodern literary theory by emphasizing the role of psychoanalysis and deconstruction in analyzing the plurality of subjectivities and cultural narratives (p. 550).

6. Cultural Studies and Critical Theory

Extends cultural criticism by linking the textual construction of authority in mass media, film, and literature to broader power/knowledge dynamics (p. 546).

Critiques the “will to scientificity” in realist representations, proposing a cultural criticism that interrogates the unconscious foundations of knowledge and identity (p. 550).

7. Realist Critique in Literature

Challenges the transparency of realist narratives, arguing they conceal processes of substitution and projection through their “truth” claims (p. 547).

Advocates for a poststructural critique of realism, emphasizing its role in constructing empirical positivities and managing contradictions within identity (p. 548).

8. Multiculturalism in Literary Theory

Explores the implications of multicultural subjectivities, arguing that postmodern approaches risk oversimplifying identity by failing to account for unconscious dynamics (p. 549).

Highlights the need for literary and cultural criticism to address how identities are shaped by intersections of race, class, gender, and unconscious processes (p. 550).

9. Authority and Desire in Narrative Construction

Examines how narratives construct authority through the projection of unconscious desires, offering a framework for analyzing authorial presence in texts (p. 547).

Contributes to the understanding of narrative desire as a critical element in both realist and postmodern literature (p. 550).

10. Interplay of Global and Local in Literary Theory

Investigates how global restructuring and local identities intersect in cultural narratives, offering a framework to analyze texts addressing globalization and multiculturalism (p. 544).

Examples of Critiques Through “Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough

Literary Work	Aspect Critiqued	Application of Clough’s Framework	Relevant Concept
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness	The construction of colonial authority and identity.	The narrative’s realist form masks its constructed nature, presenting imperialism as a natural order. Clough’s critique would expose the unconscious projection of European authorial desire onto the colonized “other,” revealing how the narrative consolidates authority through mechanisms of “othering” (p. 547).	Realist Narrativity, Othering, Authorial Desire
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	The fragmented subjectivity of characters and resistance to traditional realist structure.	Woolf’s deconstruction of linear narratives aligns with Clough’s emphasis on psychoanalytic deferral and displacement. Clough’s framework highlights how Woolf critiques the unified subject and instead explores unconscious dynamics of identity and familial desire (p. 545-546).	Psychoanalysis, Differance, Deconstruction
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	The representation of identity and trauma in the context of slavery.	Morrison’s narrative foregrounds multicultural subjectivity and the persistence of trauma as an unconscious force shaping identity. Clough’s critique would focus on how Morrison’s use of fragmented timelines and haunting narratives challenges realism and exposes the interplay of power, memory, and unconscious desire (p. 549).	Multicultural Subjectivity, Unconscious Desire, Power/Knowledge
Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale	The critique of totalitarianism and gendered oppression.	Atwood’s dystopian narrative critiques the power structures of realism in its portrayal of a patriarchal society. Clough’s framework would analyze the text’s depiction of authority and resistance as constructed through unconscious desires and psychoanalytic projections of control and identity (p. 546-547).	Authority and Desire, Feminist Psychoanalysis, Realist Critique

Key Insights from the Table

Realist Narrativity: Works like Heart of Darkness are critiqued for using realist structures to mask colonial power dynamics and project authorial desires.
Psychoanalytic Processes: To the Lighthouse demonstrates Clough’s emphasis on deferral and unconscious processes in literary narratives.
Multicultural Subjectivity and Power: Beloved exemplifies Clough’s critique of identity construction in the intersections of trauma and power.

Authority and Desire: The Handmaid’s Tale aligns with Clough’s focus on the construction of authority and gendered oppression through narrative.

Criticism Against “Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough

1. Overemphasis on Psychoanalysis

Critics may argue that Clough places excessive focus on psychoanalysis, particularly Lacanian theory, which can limit the applicability of her framework to texts and contexts that do not prioritize unconscious dynamics (p. 545).

The insistence on psychoanalytic processes such as displacement and desire may neglect other interpretative frameworks, such as materialist or historical approaches.

2. Ambiguity in Addressing Multiculturalism

Clough critiques postmodern ethnography for oversimplifying multicultural subjectivities but does not offer a clear alternative framework for analyzing identity within multicultural narratives (p. 549).

Her critique risks being perceived as abstract or overly theoretical, without providing practical tools for engaging with real-world cultural diversity in texts.

3. Abstract Nature of Deconstructive Critique

The reliance on deconstruction may appear overly theoretical or inaccessible to some readers, as it does not always offer concrete methods for textual analysis (p. 548).

Clough’s emphasis on the “double inscription” of realist narrativity might not resonate with readers looking for more tangible critiques of realism.

4. Insufficient Engagement with Postmodernism

While Clough critiques postmodern ethnography, she does not fully engage with postmodernism’s contributions to literary theory, such as its emphasis on fragmentation and plurality (p. 544).

Her work could be seen as dismissive of postmodernism’s potential to challenge traditional forms of authority and representation.

5. Limited Scope of Realist Critique

The critique of realism in narrative forms may appear too generalized, without addressing the diversity of realist strategies in literature across different genres and time periods (p. 547).

Some may argue that realism’s capacity for self-reflexivity and subversion is underestimated in her analysis.

6. Ambivalence Toward Scientific Knowledge

Clough critiques the “will to scientificity” but does not fully reconcile how scientific frameworks might coexist or align with poststructuralist approaches (p. 550).

This tension leaves her stance on the role of empirical methodologies in cultural criticism somewhat ambiguous.

7. Neglect of Reader Reception

The framework focuses heavily on authorial desire and narrative construction but does not sufficiently address the role of readers in interpreting and interacting with texts (p. 547).

This oversight may limit the applicability of her theories to reception studies and reader-response criticism.

8. Theoretical Density

The dense and abstract nature of Clough’s writing can make her arguments difficult to access for those unfamiliar with poststructuralism, psychoanalysis, or deconstruction (p. 546).

The lack of practical examples or simplified explanations may hinder the broader application of her critique.

9. Potential Neglect of Interdisciplinary Insights

While Clough engages with sociology and anthropology, her analysis may not fully incorporate insights from disciplines such as political economy or historical materialism, which could enrich her critique of cultural authority (p. 549).

Representative Quotations from “Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: The Desire for Criticism” by Patricia T. Clough with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Poststructuralism breaks up the relationship of Marxism and psychoanalysis, breaking with Marxism by pitting psychoanalysis against the totalization and teleology of a Marxism analysis.” (p. 545)	Highlights poststructuralism’s rejection of grand narratives like Marxism by emphasizing the fragmented and unconscious processes central to psychoanalysis.
“The poststructural rereading of these texts restores to psychoanalysis its capacity to be a profound criticism of totalistic, biologistic, or essentialist interpretations.” (p. 545)	Shows how poststructuralism reclaims psychoanalysis as a tool for critiquing reductive or deterministic frameworks, such as those seen in traditional Marxism or realism.
“Realist narrativity produces the real in invisible relays between what nevertheless remains apparently opposed, such as fact and fiction, content and form.” (p. 548)	Critiques realism for its “double inscription,” where it conceals the constructed nature of reality by presenting oppositions as natural.
“Deconstructive criticism, like psychoanalysis, refers representation to ‘a knot’ of words, things, and desire that can neither be definitively combined nor indefinitely separated.” (p. 548)	Explains how deconstruction reveals the interconnectedness and instability of language, desire, and representation, mirroring psychoanalytic processes.
“Postmodern ethnography, as Smith describes it, is something more like a politicized or, better, oppositional ethnomethodology or phenomenology.” (p. 547)	Critiques postmodern ethnography for lacking the critical depth of deconstruction, reducing its methodology to a form of phenomenological opposition.
“Multicultural subjectivity cannot refer only to the crossing of social, political, cultural, and economic borders. They must also be referred to itineraries of unconscious (authorial) desire.” (p. 549)	Argues that identity in multicultural contexts must account for unconscious dynamics, not just external social or cultural factors.
“Realism constitutes a certain form of reading and writing in which a ‘split-perception’ is required between actual experience-out-there and the narrative or discursive construction of it as such.” (p. 547)	Critiques realism for its reliance on the illusion of transparency, which disguises the constructed nature of its narratives.
“Oppositions or dualisms can only be temporarily deconstructed by means of critical interpretation that wedges itself between, deferring the act of opposing.” (p. 546)	Emphasizes that deconstruction does not destroy oppositions but reveals their instability, encouraging critical interpretation to explore their dynamics.
“Cultural criticism must go beyond reducing border transgressions in and of identity to cultural logics or structural imperatives.” (p. 550)	Suggests that cultural criticism needs to address unconscious processes and the symbolic dynamics of identity, rather than just focusing on sociopolitical structures.
“The authority of realism is constituted through fantasmatic substitutions, projections, displacements, etc., which nonetheless appear as empirical positivities, as the facticity of actual experience.” (p. 547)	Analyzes how realism creates an illusion of factuality by concealing the subjective and unconscious processes behind its narratives.