Tag: Theory Article Summaries

● The Incoherence of New Historicism as a Methodology

Lehan criticizes the New Historicism for lacking an overarching methodological framework. Instead of presenting a unified system of interpretation, it delivers “a series of discrete and diverse readings of literary texts and cultural periods as if these readings were bound by doctrine” (Lehan 536). This absence of methodological unity, according to Lehan, weakens its credibility as a legitimate critical school, particularly in contrast to the more structured approaches of structuralism and Marxism.

● Suppression of Historical Process Through the Synchronic Turn

Lehan’s primary critique centers on New Historicism’s substitution of spatial (synchronic) for temporal (diachronic) readings of history. He sees this as part of a broader postmodern trend that erases the notion of historical continuity. He warns against the “dangers of spatializing time” (Lehan 533) and critiques how synchronic methods “create a disjunction between what the text is saying about history and what the historian is saying about the text” (Lehan 536). This disjunction leads to a flattening of temporality and a loss of historical agency.

● The Shift from Causality to Representation Undermines History

The New Historicism’s Foucauldian roots encourage a retreat from linear, causal history toward representational paradigms. As Lehan observes, in this view, “we do not ‘know’ history but only the paradigms that we bring to the explanation of what we call history” (Lehan 535). By emphasizing tropes, signs, and representations, this approach transforms both history and literature into self-referential systems, severing them from real-world causality and change.

● Postmodern Denial of Historical Meaning as Ideological Erasure

Lehan argues that New Historicism and its theoretical allies—especially Foucault, Derrida, and de Man—engage in a covert ideological act by denying the possibility of historical direction or progress. This denial, ironically, constitutes an ideological position: “no theory of history—or of literary criticism—is neutral but carries within it an ideology” (Lehan 536). The idea that “history has no direction even as it takes the idea of direction as its object of attack” is, for Lehan, a self-contradiction (Lehan 536).

● Structuralist and Poststructuralist Denials of History Are Paradoxically Historicized

Even while denying historical continuity, structuralists and poststructuralists cannot escape historical influence. Lehan contends that “semiotics, for example, depends totally on reading signs in a historical/cultural context” (Lehan 536). He illustrates this with the example of how a burning American flag held radically different meanings before and after the Vietnam War. Thus, any claim to historical neutrality is inherently flawed and historically contingent.

● Derrida and De Man: Freezing Narrative Time into Rhetorical Suspension

Lehan critiques Derrida’s deconstruction of time and meaning as leading to a state of “thought without action” and a suspension of historical agency (Lehan 538). He similarly faults de Man for reducing narrative texts to isolated rhetorical moments: “flux is frozen static by a preoccupation with rhetorical forms of play” (Lehan 539). Both thinkers, in Lehan’s view, sever language from temporality, turning historical and narrative process into inert tropes.

● The Collapse of History into Tropes Leads to Ethical and Political Abdication

According to Lehan, by eliminating time and causality, the New Historicism eliminates the basis for ethical responsibility and political engagement. He asserts, “in denying history, we affirm it, because our denial can never be separated from a historical context” (Lehan 536). The aestheticization of history removes any real-world implications, thereby neutralizing the potential for critique or resistance.

● Case Study: Tropological Misreading of Sister Carrie

Lehan critiques Walter Benn Michaels’s The Gold Standard and the Logic of Naturalism as a representative New Historicist reading that subordinates narrative structure to trope. Michaels interprets Sister Carrie through the lens of money and desire, portraying Carrie as a metaphor for capitalist subjectivity. Lehan challenges this view, arguing that “Carrie’s sense of desire is stimulated first by Chicago… and then by New York” (Lehan 542), indicating an environmental and evolutionary logic rather than a purely tropological one. Michaels, Lehan argues, represses Dreiser’s naturalistic causal sequences, particularly the contrasting trajectories of Carrie and Hurstwood.

● The Ethical Importance of Narrative Sequence and Causality

Lehan insists that time is not reducible to language, and that narrative temporality must be recovered to understand a text’s ethical and political implications. “Time is not language, and language is not time. We can speak about time in language, but this is not identical with the way we experience time” (Lehan 545). He argues that abandoning diachronic narrative in favor of synchronic representation leads to the depoliticization of literature.

● Literary Subgenres as Expressions of Historical Change

Lehan promotes the reading of literary subgenres as historically embedded forms that reflect cultural shifts. He explores how genres like the Gothic, Western, detective novel, and the young-man-from-the-provinces story evolved from specific historical contexts. For example, the Gothic novel encodes anxieties over the decline of the landed estate, while the detective novel arises alongside the growth of the modern city and concerns over urban anonymity (Lehan 546–49).

● Intertextuality as Historicized Dialogue

Lehan redefines intertextuality in historical terms, showing how texts speak to each other across historical moments. Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, for instance, inverts the idealism of the Western genre to critique capitalist modernity. “Fitzgerald brilliantly showed how romantic expectation was connected with historical ideals always located in the past” (Lehan 544). Intertextual allusions thus reflect transformations in cultural values, not just rhetorical play.

● Reinstating Historical Process in Literary Studies

In his conclusion, Lehan argues for a return to literary analysis rooted in historical process rather than representational tropes. He calls for recognition of historical transitions—e.g., from feudalism to capitalism, or from industrial to informational economies—and their reflections in literature. He links naturalism and modernism as responses to the same industrial age, noting that “modernism and naturalism are thus two different responses to the same historical moment” (Lehan 553).

Final Assessment

Lehan’s essay is both a sustained critique of the theoretical underpinnings of the New Historicism and a proposal for restoring historical temporality, causality, and ideological engagement to literary criticism. He insists that narrative and historical process matter—not just as thematic content but as ideological form. He urges critics to “restore process to our use of history” (Lehan 533), anchoring literary study once again in the dynamic interplay between form, temporality, and political culture.

🔍 New Historicism as a Postmodern Historiographical Method

• Pieters establishes that New Historicism shares theoretical ground with postmodern historiography, especially the narrativist historicism of Frank Ankersmit and the heterological theory of Michel de Certeau.
• He takes Catherine Belsey’s remark that “at its most brilliant, its most elegant, New Historicism is characteristically postmodern” (p. 21) as a springboard for his analysis.

⚖️ Rejection of Traditional Historicism

• New historicists like Greenblatt and Montrose repudiate the objectivist and positivist assumptions of earlier historicists, who viewed history as a unified, knowable monolith.
• Greenblatt critiques traditional historicism’s adherence to three flawed beliefs: deterministic views of history, value-neutrality, and a reverence for the past:

“Most of the writing labelled new historicist… has set itself resolutely against each of these positions” (Greenblatt, Learning to Curse, p. 164; quoted p. 23).

📚 Terminological Confusion: Historicism vs. Historism

• Pieters notes that Greenblatt conflates Hegelian teleological historicism with Rankean empiricism, though they are historiographically distinct.
• Frank Ankersmit recommends labeling the latter “historism,” reserving “historicism” for speculative philosophies of history like Hegel’s (Aesthetic Politics, p. 375-6; cited p. 23).

🧩 Narrativist Historicism: Constructing, Not Discovering, Coherence

• According to Ankersmit, narrativist historians do not uncover pre-existing coherence in history, but rather construct it through discourse:

“Narrativists… believe that the historian’s language does not reflect a coherence… in the past itself, but only gives coherence to the past” (History and Tropology, p. 155; quoted p. 26).

📖 Greenblatt’s Dialogical History: Listening to the Past’s Multiple Voices

• Greenblatt sees history as a dialogue both within the past and between past and present, echoing Gadamer’s hermeneutics:

“While speaking about the past, [historians] also talk to it” (p. 25).

🔁 Two Strands of Postmodern Historicism: Narrativism and Heterology

• Pieters defines narrativism (Foucault) as focused on discourse and systems of knowledge; it analyzes how epochs construct meaning through discursive formations.
• Heterology (Certeau) is more psychoanalytic, concerned with the repressed “other” of history—that which resists representation:

“The repressed… returns in our descriptions of [the past]” (p. 28).

📚 Greenblatt as Both Narrativist and Heterologist

• Greenblatt’s method combines both approaches via his distinctive use of historical anecdotes.
• These anecdotes function both as discursive nodes (narrativist) and as sites of estrangement and alterity (heterological):

“The anecdote both serves as the central locus of a culture’s dispersive nature… and as the site where history’s other can be brought to the fore” (p. 29).

🔬 The Anecdote: Bridge Between Narrative and the Real

• Anecdotes provide textual entry points into historical energies and subjectivities, yet their connection to reality is constructed, not mimetic:

“[The] anecdote… exceeds its literary status… [and] uniquely refers to the real” (Joel Fineman, quoted p. 37).

• Greenblatt’s term “social energy” captures this effect: moments that transmit affect across time and social structures, though their origin is not empirically fixed:

“The term implies something measurable, yet I cannot provide a convenient and reliable formula… it is manifested in the capacity to produce… collective experiences” (Shakespearean Negotiations, p. 6; quoted p. 33).

🎭 Cultural Zones and Discursive Systems

• In Shakespearean Negotiations, Greenblatt expands on how cultural “zones” like religion, theater, or politics regulate discourse and meaning.
• Influenced by Foucault, these zones are not discrete but interconnected through the circulation of symbolic materials and power:

“Zones… are societal spaces whose specificity is functionally determined by the discourses that are proper to them” (p. 32).

📡 Resonance and Wonder: Dual Function of Cultural Artifacts

• Greenblatt theorizes two aesthetic-historical effects:
  • Resonance: cultural artifacts reflect historical systems.
  • Wonder: they also provoke estrangement and attention to singularity.

“It is the function of the new historicism continually to renew the marvelous at the heart of the resonant” (Learning to Curse, p. 181; quoted p. 36).

🪞 The Risk of Regression: Historicism’s Return?

• Pieters warns that Greenblatt’s use of “social energy” may unintentionally reintroduce metaphysical coherence, akin to traditional historicism’s “historical idea”:

“Anecdotes will no longer serve as scenes of dispersal, but as… manifestations of social energy” (p. 34).

Conclusion: A Hybrid Heuristic Practice

• Pieters concludes that Greenblatt’s method is best seen as a hybrid, drawing strength from both narrativist and heterological postmodern historiography.
• The tension between discursive construction and yearning for the real is not a flaw but a heuristic asset, grounding New Historicism’s critical potential.

🔍 1. Postmodern Historiography

• Bridges literary criticism and historiographical theory by aligning New Historicism with the postmodern critique of historical objectivity.
• Draws directly on Frank Ankersmit’s “narrativist historicism”, showing that New Historicism shares postmodern skepticism about historical facts and emphasizes discursive construction (Pieters, p. 24).

“[N]ew historicism can indeed be regarded as the literary-historical counterpart to recent, ‘postmodern’ developments in the theory of history” (Pieters, p. 22).

🧩 2. New Historicism

• Clarifies the theoretical ambiguity in Stephen Greenblatt’s rejection of the term “historicism”, revealing that Greenblatt’s approach aligns more with a revised, postmodern form of historicism rather than rejecting it outright (Pieters, p. 23).
• Identifies dual methodologies within New Historicism:
  • Narrativism (influenced by Foucault)
  • Heterology (inspired by de Certeau)
    → This dual typology deepens understanding of New Historicist practice (Pieters, p. 27).

“To fully characterize Greenblatt’s reading method, we do well to distinguish between two variants of postmodern historicism” (Pieters, p. 21).

🗣️ 3. Discourse Theory / Foucauldian Criticism

• Shows how Foucauldian “archaeology” and “genealogy” inform New Historicist methods of cultural analysis (Pieters, p. 29–30).
• Introduces the concept of “cultural dispositifs”, systems of discursive and institutional formation, rooted in Foucault’s theory, as central to Greenblatt’s method.

“Such discursive systems resemble what Michel Foucault has termed cultural ‘dispositifs'” (Pieters, p. 30).

🧠 4. Psychoanalytic Historiography (via Michel de Certeau)

• Emphasizes the role of repression and the unconscious in history-writing, grounding the heterological variant of New Historicism in psychoanalytic theory.
• Certeau’s “return of the repressed” is linked to Greenblatt’s use of anecdotes as sites where the silenced or marginalized resurfaces (Pieters, p. 27–28, 35).

“The repressed… returns in our descriptions of it. The repressed… is there in its absence” (Pieters, p. 28).

📖 5. Narrative Theory / Theory of Representation

• Applies the “historical idea” (from Humboldt via Ankersmit) as a literary-critical tool for interpreting Greenblatt’s concept of self-fashioning as a narrative function rather than a historical “fact” (Pieters, p. 26).
• Shows how historical narratives do not discover structures in the past but impose them, reinforcing poststructuralist views of narrative mediation (Pieters, p. 25).

“Narrativists believe that the historian’s language… gives coherence to the past” (Pieters, p. 25).

🎭 6. Cultural Materialism / Cultural Poetics

• Deepens cultural materialist theory by detailing how social energy—as used by Greenblatt—circulates between cultural zones and texts, shaping meaning (Pieters, p. 33).
• Emphasizes that literary texts are active agents in cultural discourse, not passive reflections of social reality.

“[Cultural] zones are societal spaces… whose specificity is functionally determined by the discourses that are proper to them” (Pieters, p. 32).

🧵 7. Rhetoric and Aesthetics

• Reframes Greenblatt’s aesthetic terms “resonance” and “wonder” as rhetorical devices that negotiate between historical context and textual autonomy (Pieters, p. 36).
• Connects “social energy” to rhetorical traditions via Aristotle’s energeia, reviving classical poetics within a postmodern historiographical frame (Pieters, p. 33–34).

“Its origins lie in rhetoric rather than physic… the metaphor refers to the power of language to cause in the reader ‘a stir to the mind'” (Pieters, p. 33).

✍️ 8. Critical Hermeneutics

• Applies Gadamerian insight about the historian’s historicity and the dialogical nature of understanding the past (Pieters, p. 22, 25).
• Strengthens literary hermeneutics by recognizing that all readings are historically situated dialogues rather than objective reconstructions.

“[W]hile speaking about the past, [historians] also talk to it” (Pieters, p. 25).

• ⚠️ Ambiguity in Greenblatt’s Positioning
  Pieters admits that it’s difficult to place Stephen Greenblatt definitively within either the narrativist or heterological tradition:

“His reading method can be said to contain traces of both approaches.” (p. 28)
This lack of clarity may weaken the heuristic value of the narrativist/heterological divide itself.

• ⚠️ Tension Between Theory and Practice
  Although the essay establishes theoretical foundations (via Ankersmit, Foucault, Certeau), Pieters acknowledges Greenblatt’s resistance to theorization and his tendency to blur philosophical distinctions for rhetorical purposes:

“Greenblatt tries to take the two under one and the same umbrella, without wondering about the appropriateness of doing so.” (p. 23)

• ⚠️ Risk of Sliding into Traditional Historicism
  Pieters warns that despite New Historicism’s postmodern claims, it may inadvertently revert to traditional historicist assumptions—particularly through its search for cultural coherence via concepts like “social energy”:

“This logic may ultimately be taken to imply that the historian… will be able to get in touch with the real of the past.” (p. 34)

• ⚠️ Problem of “Arbitrary Connectedness”
  Greenblatt’s use of anecdotes (as discussed by Pieters) has been criticized for lacking causal or methodological rigor:

“What is the exact nature of the relationship between Iago’s attitude and that of the Spanish conquistadores?” (p. 31)
Critics like Walter Cohen argue this leads to thematic free association rather than disciplined historical analysis.

• ⚠️ Anecdote as a Double-Edged Method
  While the anecdote offers insight into cultural systems (resonance/wonder), its referential ambiguity raises problems:

“The anecdote both serves as the central locus of a culture’s dispersive nature… and as the site where history’s other can be brought to the fore.” (p. 28)
This duality complicates claims to either historicist precision or heterological disruption.

• ⚠️ Overreliance on Poststructuralist Canon
  Pieters’ reliance on Foucault, Certeau, and Ankersmit, while insightful, may limit alternative historicist models (e.g. Marxist materialism, feminist historiography), narrowing the theoretical diversity.
• ⚠️ Potential Idealization of Anecdotal Heuristics
  The trust placed in “thick description” and cultural micro-events risks romanticizing isolated fragments, while neglecting broader socio-economic structures or empirical history.
• ⚠️ Methodological Vagueness of “Social Energy”
  Pieters acknowledges Greenblatt’s own uncertainty in defining this concept:

“The question of the true essence of social energy is to a large extent unanswerable.” (p. 33)

1. Overgeneralization of Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

• Critics argue that Snead paints poststructuralist theorists like Derrida and Barthes with a broad brush, failing to acknowledge the nuances in their work.
• Some scholars note that Derrida, for instance, does engage with non-Western concepts, albeit minimally. His essay “White Mythology” acknowledges the Eurocentrism embedded in Western philosophy.
• Snead himself admits that “Of all Derrida’s major essays and readings, only the one entitled ‘La Mythologie Blanche’ even comments upon the implications of its title, and of its own whiteness” (Snead, p. 37).

2. Lack of Engagement with Non-Western Critical Traditions

• While Snead critiques the exclusion of Black and non-Western thought, he does not provide substantive engagement with alternative literary or theoretical frameworks from these traditions.
• His argument remains centered on critiquing Eurocentric thinkers without offering a clear model for incorporating non-Western intellectual traditions into postmodernist theory.
• Some critics argue that Snead’s work, despite its important observations, remains embedded in a Western academic framework rather than actively engaging with alternative epistemologies.

3. Dismissal of Postmodernist Literature’s Self-Critique

• Snead critiques postmodernist literature for reducing Black characters to symbols of otherness, but some scholars argue that these works engage in a self-reflexive critique of racial representation.
• For example, Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow is often seen as an interrogation of white supremacy, rather than simply a reinforcement of racist tropes.
• Critics question whether Snead fully accounts for the irony and metafictional strategies in postmodernist fiction that deliberately expose and critique racial constructs rather than merely perpetuating them.

4. Limited Consideration of Marxist and Materialist Critiques of Race

• Snead focuses on poststructuralist theory’s failure to address race but does not sufficiently engage with Marxist or materialist critiques, which analyze race in connection with capitalism and class struggle.
• Some scholars argue that a deeper engagement with Marxist literary criticism or Black Marxist thought (such as Cedric Robinson’s Black Marxism) would have strengthened Snead’s argument by situating race within a broader political economy.

5. Insufficient Discussion of Black and Postcolonial Theorists

• Snead critiques the absence of race in postmodernist thought but does not extensively engage with Black or postcolonial theorists who have addressed these issues.
• For instance, scholars like Frantz Fanon, Aimé Césaire, and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o had already critiqued the Eurocentrism of Western intellectual traditions.
• Some critics argue that Snead could have strengthened his critique by aligning more explicitly with Afrocentric or postcolonial theoretical traditions rather than focusing mainly on deconstructing Western thinkers.

6. Does Not Provide a Clear Alternative to Postmodernist Theory

• While Snead effectively critiques the limitations of postmodernist and deconstructionist approaches to race, he does not propose a systematic alternative for incorporating racial and non-Western perspectives into literary theory.
• Critics argue that the essay raises important questions but stops short of offering concrete solutions for how literary theory should evolve to address race more fully.

🔹 1. Racism as Ordinary, Not Aberrational

“Racism is ordinary, not aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 3).
CRT challenges the assumption that racism is an anomaly and instead emphasizes its systemic, ingrained presence in everyday life.

🔹 2. Interest Convergence & Material Determinism

“Racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically)” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 3).
This means white society has little motivation to eliminate racism unless it benefits them.

🔹 3. Race as a Social Construct

“Race and races are products of social thought and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed… they correspond to no biological or genetic reality” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 3).
CRT emphasizes that race is socially constructed, invented and manipulated based on context.

🔹 4. Microaggressions and Daily Racism

“Social scientists call the event a ‘microaggression,’ by which they mean one of those many sudden, stunning, or dispiriting transactions that mar the days of women and folks of color” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 1).
Even small, often unconscious actions contribute to a larger pattern of racial harm.

🔹 5. Intersectionality and Anti-Essentialism

“No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 4).
CRT recognizes overlapping identities—race, gender, class, sexuality—and rejects one-size-fits-all categorization.

🔹 6. The Unique Voice of Color

“Minority status… brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 4).
Experiences of people of color provide insights often invisible to white counterparts, justifying the importance of counter-narratives.

🔹 7. Origins in Legal Scholarship and Civil Rights Disillusionment

“CRT sprang up in the mid-1970s, as a number of lawyers, activists, and legal scholars… realized that the heady advances of the civil rights era… had stalled” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 2).
It emerged as a response to the rollback of civil rights reforms and their inadequate reach.

🔹 8. Activist Nature and Transformation

“Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension… to change [the social situation]” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 2).
CRT is committed to praxis—using knowledge to push for social change, not just analyze structures.

🔹 9. Relationship to Other Movements

“CRT builds on the insights of… critical legal studies and radical feminism… [and] the American radical tradition” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 2).
It is rooted in and influenced by multiple intellectual and political traditions.

🔹 10. Evolving Spin-Off Movements

“New subgroups… include an emerging Asian American jurisprudence, a forceful Latino-critical (LatCrit) contingent, and a feisty queer-crit interest group” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 3).
CRT has diversified into distinct but connected scholarly and activist communities.

🔹 11. Structural Critique of Liberalism

“CRT questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 2).
Rather than trusting the law as neutral or fair, CRT interrogates how legal systems uphold power structures.

🔹 12. Racialization Over Time

“Dominant society racializes different minority groups at different times, in response to shifting needs such as the labor market” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 3).
This dynamic racialization supports exploitative systems depending on socio-economic needs.

🔹 13. Evidence of Persistent Racism

“Blacks and Latinos who seek loans, apartments, or jobs are much more apt than similarly qualified whites to be rejected” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 5).
The data backs up CRT’s claim that systemic racism continues to shape real-life outcomes.

🔹 14. Importance of Narrative and Storytelling

“The ‘legal storytelling’ movement urges black and brown writers to recount their experiences with racism and the legal system” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 4).
Storytelling becomes a method to challenge dominant legal and historical narratives.

🔹 1. Narrative Theory / Legal Storytelling

• Contribution: CRT introduces storytelling and counterstorytelling as valid and necessary tools to disrupt dominant legal and cultural narratives.
• Significance in Literary Theory: It elevates personal narratives, anecdotes, and lived experiences as central forms of knowledge, aligning with literary theories that emphasize subjectivity and voice.
• Reference: “The ‘legal storytelling’ movement urges black and brown writers to recount their experiences with racism… to assess law’s master narratives” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 4).

🔹 2. Post-Structuralism / Deconstruction

• Contribution: CRT questions the neutrality of language, law, and knowledge, and draws from theorists like Jacques Derrida.
• Significance in Literary Theory: It supports the idea that texts (including laws and histories) are not objective, aligning with post-structuralist views that meaning is unstable and power-laden.
• Reference: “CRT… questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including… Enlightenment rationalism” (p. 2).

🔹 3. Critical Legal Studies & Literary Indeterminacy

• Contribution: Embraces legal indeterminacy—that legal texts can be interpreted multiple ways.
• Significance in Literary Theory: This mirrors the idea in literary theory that texts do not have one fixed meaning, but are open to multiple readings.
• Reference: “Not every legal case has one correct outcome… one can decide most cases either way” (p. 2).

🔹 4. Intersectionality and Identity Theory

• Contribution: CRT foregrounds intersectionality and anti-essentialism, challenging the idea of a single, unified identity.
• Significance in Literary Theory: These concepts are vital to feminist and queer literary theory, which critiques fixed identity categories.
• Reference: “No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity” (p. 4).

🔹 5. Postcolonial and Cultural Studies

• Contribution: CRT critiques dominant culture’s portrayal of race and racialized bodies through differential racialization and stereotyping.
• Significance in Literary Theory: Aligns with postcolonial theory’s focus on representation, colonial discourse, and racial hierarchies in literature.
• Reference: “Society racializes different minority groups at different times… Popular images and stereotypes… shift over time” (p. 3).

🔹 6. Reader-Response & Voice-of-Color Thesis

• Contribution: CRT’s voice-of-color thesis asserts that marginalized readers bring unique insights to interpreting texts.
• Significance in Literary Theory: Resonates with reader-response theory and theories of positional reading, which value the reader’s social and racial position.
• Reference: “Minority status… brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism” (p. 4).

🔹 7. Structuralism and Ideology Critique

• Contribution: CRT critiques the structural biases of legal and societal systems.
• Significance in Literary Theory: This parallels structuralist and Marxist literary theories, which analyze how texts reflect and reinforce ideological systems.
• Reference: “CRT… seeks to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies” (p. 2).

🔹 8. Revisionist Historiography / Metahistory

• Contribution: CRT offers revisionist interpretations of history, challenging “triumphalist” narratives.
• Significance in Literary Theory: This aligns with new historicism and metahistorical criticism, which scrutinize how history is written and for whom.
• Reference: “Favorable precedent… tends to deteriorate over time, cut back by narrow… interpretation” (p. 2).

🔹 9. Critical Whiteness Studies

• Contribution: CRT explores whiteness as a constructed racial identity and locus of power.
• Significance in Literary Theory: Informs critical whiteness theory in literature, examining how whiteness is rendered invisible or normative in texts.
• Reference: “Critical white studies addresses… whether such a thing as white privilege exists” (p. 5).

🔹 10. Activist Criticism / Transformative Praxis

• Contribution: CRT insists on engaged, transformative scholarship, not just abstract critique.
• Significance in Literary Theory: Influences activist criticism—approaches that seek real-world change through interpretive work.
• Reference: “It not only tries to understand our social situation, but to change it” (p. 2).

🔸 1. Accusation of Pessimism

• Critics argue CRT is too pessimistic about the permanence of racism in society.
• Response in the text: Delgado and Stefancic counter by comparing CRT to medicine: “Is medicine pessimistic because it focuses on diseases and traumas?” (p. 6).

🔸 2. Rejection of Enlightenment Principles

• CRT is critiqued for questioning equality theory, rationalism, and neutral legal principles, which are core to Western liberal thought.
• Text states: CRT “questions the very foundations of the liberal order” (p. 2), which some view as radical and destabilizing.

🔸 3. Subjectivity over Objectivity

• Critics claim CRT relies too heavily on personal narratives and subjective experiences (e.g., legal storytelling), which weakens scholarly neutrality.
• CRT, however, argues that counterstories challenge dominant narratives and are essential for revealing hidden structures of racism (p. 4).

🔸 4. Undermining Colorblindness

• Some argue CRT rejects the ideal of colorblindness, which they see as crucial for achieving a just society.
• CRT responds that colorblindness ignores real power dynamics and only addresses overt racism, not structural inequality (p. 3).

🔸 5. Encouragement of Identity Politics

• CRT is accused of promoting identity-based thinking, potentially leading to division rather than unity.
• Delgado and Stefancic highlight that intersectionality and anti-essentialism actually deepen understanding of complex social identities (p. 4).

🔸 6. Ideological Bias

• Some critics (especially from the political Right) argue CRT reflects a left-wing ideological agenda and is activist rather than analytical.
• CRT embraces this, asserting that theory must also aim to transform society, not just interpret it (p. 2).

🔸 7. Relativism and Legal Indeterminacy

• The concept of legal indeterminacy—that legal outcomes can be shaped by power and interpretation—is seen as threatening to legal consistency.
• CRT uses this to critique how legal systems serve dominant interests, especially in civil rights (p. 2).

🔸 8. Essentialism of the “Voice of Color”

• Tension exists within CRT itself between anti-essentialism and the voice-of-color thesis.
• Critics argue it risks reducing individuals to their racial identities, though CRT acknowledges this tension (p. 4).

🔸 9. Perceived Lack of Empirical Evidence

• Detractors argue CRT relies more on anecdotal experience than empirical, data-driven analysis.
• CRT counters that many forms of racism are difficult to quantify and often masked by institutional practices (p. 5).

🔹 1. Postmodernism

• Undermines Legal Universalism: Minda explains that CRT “rejects the notio[n] that law can be studied in a way that is culturally neutral” (p. 183), aligning with postmodern critiques of objectivity and emphasizing cultural contingency.
• Multiplicity of Truths: Postmodern theory holds that truth is fragmented; CRT follows suit by asserting that “truth is somewhere, if anywhere, in the symphony of experience” (p. 176).
• Destabilizes Modernist Subjectivity: CRT “decenters the legal conception of race by revealing the different experiences of racial groups” (p. 184), echoing postmodernism’s critique of stable identity categories.

🔹 2. Narrative Theory

• Rise of “Narrative Jurisprudence”: Minda states that CRT incorporates “rich allegories, metaphors, chronicles, and parables” to express racial experiences (p. 173).
• Voice as Epistemology: CRT uses narrative not just as illustration, but as a mode of knowing, thereby expanding literary theory’s focus on the role of voice and authorship in meaning-making.
• Minority Storytelling as Counter-History: The emphasis on experiential narrative challenges the canonical “legal story,” paralleling literary theory’s turn to subaltern and counter-discourses.

🔹 3. Identity Theory / Cultural Studies

• Race as Social Construction: Minda writes that CRT “analyzes modern modes of jurisprudence as an ideology structured by racial attitudes and norms” (p. 179), contributing to cultural theory’s treatment of identity as constructed and performative.
• Postmodern Nationalism: The concept critiques essentialist identity but retains group-based cultural specificity (p. 183), mirroring Stuart Hall’s notion of cultural identity as a ‘production’.
• Intersectionality as Multivocality: CRT advances multi-positional identity politics, especially via black feminism’s challenge to “single-axis” narratives (p. 185).

🔹 4. Feminist Literary Theory

• Shared Methodologies: Like feminist scholars, CRT uses narrative to foreground embodied, gendered, and racial experience (p. 173).
• Intersectionality (Crenshaw): The Anita Hill case illustrates how “black feminist legal scholars” must “develop their own narratives” due to marginalization by both race and gender discourses (p. 185).
• Critique of Essentialism: Echoing poststructuralist feminism, CRT warns against unitary concepts of identity, stating there is “no essential concept of race, culture, or group identity” (p. 183).

🔹 5. Deconstruction (Jacques Derrida)

• Binary Opposition in Racial Ideology: Crenshaw uses deconstruction to critique the “metaphysics of presence” in racial thought—e.g., white = intelligent/moral vs. black = ignorant/immoral (p. 180).
• Inversion of Binaries: CRT reveals how law “reproduces” hierarchies via binary oppositions and seeks to invert and destabilize these (p. 181).
• Discourse and Power: The text shows how racial identities are “filled with meaning” through language and societal categorization (p. 180), echoing Derrida’s view that meaning is always deferred and constructed through difference.

🔹 6. Reader-Response Theory

• Emphasis on Interpretation by Marginalized Readers: CRT contributes to reader-oriented criticism by suggesting that those who “experience discrimination speak with a special voice” (p. 173).
• Reader Positionality Matters: The reception and interpretation of legal (and literary) texts depend on one’s social and racial location—questioning the “universal reader” assumption in traditional theory.

🔹 Criticisms from Conservative Scholars

• Color-Blind Idealism:
  Critics like Thomas Sowell argue that CRT undermines the ideal of a color-blind society, claiming the “battle for civil rights was fought and won”, making continued race-conscious remedies like affirmative action unnecessary (p. 170).
• Meritocratic Backlash:
  Opponents claim CRT rejects merit-based standards and instead promotes racial favoritism, thus politicizing civil rights and turning them into special-interest lobbying (p. 170–171).

🔹 Criticism by Randall Kennedy (Harvard Law) – “Racial Critiques Debate”

• Race-Based Standing as Anti-Intellectual:
  Kennedy contended that CRT’s idea of “voice of color” and race-based intellectual standing is dangerous, reducing scholarship to racial identity rather than the merit of ideas (p. 175–176).
• Silencing White Scholars:
  He argued that CRT may discourage or exclude white scholars from race discourse, fearing they lack the “authentic voice” needed to contribute (p. 176).
• Racial Essentialism:
  Kennedy cautioned that CRT risks reinforcing essentialist racial categories, leading to judgments based on identity rather than content (p. 176).

🔹 Critique from Within: Critical Legal Studies (CLS) Movement

• Failure to Ground in Historical Context:
  Kimberlé Crenshaw critiqued Alan Freeman and CLS scholars for failing to embed racial analysis in the historical and cultural reality of racial oppression (p. 174–175).
• Undermining Liberal Rights Discourse:
  Crenshaw warned that CLS’s general attack on rights could disempower minorities, who still see rights discourse as essential for achieving transformation (p. 174).

🔹 Concerns About Identity Politics and Fragmentation

• Balkanization of Discourse:
  Some critics fear CRT’s emphasis on identity-based scholarship can lead to fragmentation and the erosion of shared norms or standards in academia (p. 181–182).
• Race Narratives vs. Universal Standards:
  There’s concern that personal narratives, though valuable, may lack rigor or universal applicability, challenging the idea of shared truth or objective legal reasoning (p. 173–174).

🔹 Feminist Parallels and Intersectionality Tensions

• Internal Conflicts on Standpoint and Difference:
  CRT faces the same “sameness vs. difference” tensions as feminist legal theory—whether race should be foundational in all legal analysis or contextual and intersectional (p. 177–178).
• Black Feminist Critique:
  Black feminist scholars noted CRT often marginalized gender, requiring the development of intersectional perspectives (e.g., Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas case) to reflect multiple identities (p. 184–185).

1. Overuse and Conceptual Inflation of the Term “Racism”

• Blum argues that the term “racism” is frequently overused, leading to a loss of its distinct moral force.
• He states, “Instead of the current practice of referring to virtually anything that goes wrong or amiss with respect to race as ‘racism,’ we should recognize a much broader moral vocabulary” (Blum, 2002, p. 203).
• He advocates for alternative terms such as racial insensitivity, racial ignorance, racial injustice, racial discomfort, and racial exclusion to more accurately describe different racial ills.

2. Defining Racism: Antipathy and Inferiorizing Racism

• Blum defines racism as consisting of two distinct forms:
  • Antipathy Racism: Hostility or hatred toward a racial group.
  • Inferiorizing Racism: Treating a racial group as inferior or less valuable.
• He clarifies, “All forms of racism can be related to either of two general ‘themes’ – inferiorization, and antipathy” (Blum, 2002, p. 210).

3. Distinction Between Racist Actions and Racially Objectionable Actions

• Not all racial issues stem from racism, and not all racially insensitive acts are motivated by racist intent.
• Blum warns against the oversimplification of racial incidents: “If our only choices are to label an act ‘racist’ or ‘nothing to get too upset about,’ those who seek to garner moral attention to some racial malfeasance will be tempted to call it ‘racist’” (Blum, 2002, p. 207).
• He gives the example of a white police officer placing a noose as a prank, which may not be racist in intent but still has racial significance.

4. Racial Stereotypes: Not All Are Racist

• Blum distinguishes between racist and non-racist racial stereotypes.
  • Example: The stereotype that “blacks are intellectually deficient” is racist because it inferiorizes them.
  • However, the stereotype that “blacks are good dancers” is not necessarily racist, although it is still problematic (Blum, 2002, p. 212).
• He argues for a historical approach to understanding racial stereotypes, emphasizing that some have deeper, more harmful implications than others.

5. Racist Jokes vs. Racist Individuals

• A person who tells a racist joke is not necessarily a racist.
• He writes, “A remark can be unquestionably racist without the person making the remark being a racist, or making the remark for a racist reason” (Blum, 2002, p. 209).
• He highlights that some individuals may tell racist jokes out of ignorance or a desire to fit in rather than due to racist beliefs.

6. Racial Discomfort and Anxiety Are Not Racism

• Many white individuals experience racial discomfort when interacting with people of color, but this is not inherently racist.
• Example: A white teacher who is uneasy talking to Black parents is not racist but has racial anxiety, which still affects her effectiveness as an educator (Blum, 2002, p. 213).
• Blum asserts that racial anxiety stems from a lack of exposure, not necessarily racist ideology.

7. The Dangers of Racial Profiling and Stereotyping

• Blum examines the case of Officer Cornel Young Jr., a Black police officer shot by white colleagues who mistook him for a threat.
• He argues that the shooting was not motivated by racial hatred but by implicit racial biases: “Treating blackness as if it were an indicator of suspiciousness or criminality is referred to as ‘racial profiling’” (Blum, 2002, p. 216).
• This highlights how racist stereotypes can be dangerous even when there is no explicit racial hatred.

8. The Importance of Clarifying the Meaning of Racism

• Blum stresses that defining racism more precisely will improve interracial discussions and reduce unnecessary accusations of racism.
• He states, “Fixing on such a definition should encourage us to make use of the considerable other resources our language affords us for describing and evaluating race-related ills” (Blum, 2002, p. 209).
• He calls for a distinction between racism and other racial issues, so that society can address all race-related problems without diminishing the seriousness of racism.

Conclusion

• Blum emphasizes that while racism is a significant moral failing, not all racial problems should be categorized as racism.
• He calls for a broader and more precise moral vocabulary to discuss race-related issues without diluting the meaning of racism.
• Ultimately, he argues that “Moral concern is appropriately directed toward this wider domain, and should not be confined to racism appropriately so called” (Blum, 2002, p. 218).

1. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Blum’s work aligns with Critical Race Theory (CRT) by exploring how racism is deeply embedded in social structures and language.
• His argument that racism is often misapplied and overused mirrors CRT’s concern with how race is socially constructed and manipulated for power dynamics.
• He critiques the tendency to label all racial issues as “racism,” emphasizing, “Not all racial incidents are racist incidents. Not every instance of racial conflict, insensitivity, discomfort, miscommunication, exclusion, injustice, or ignorance should be called ‘racist’” (Blum, 2002, p. 207).
• This perspective refines CRT’s analytical tools, urging scholars to distinguish between different racial phenomena rather than using a single, broad framework.

2. Postcolonial Theory

• Blum’s emphasis on inferiorizing racism contributes to Postcolonial Theory, particularly regarding how colonized subjects are historically perceived as inferior.
• His distinction between antipathy racism (racial hatred) and inferiorizing racism (racial hierarchy) mirrors postcolonial critiques of Eurocentrism and its legacy.
• “All forms of racism can be related to either of two general ‘themes’ – inferiorization, and antipathy” (Blum, 2002, p. 210).
• This distinction helps in postcolonial literary analysis by differentiating between racial domination through hate (as seen in colonial violence) and racial paternalism (as seen in so-called ‘benevolent’ colonial rule).

3. Structuralism and Semiotics

• Blum’s work contributes to Structuralist and Semiotic Literary Theory by analyzing how language and terminology shape racial discourse.
• He argues that the word “racism” has become overloaded with moral and political meaning, diluting its analytical clarity, which aligns with structuralist concerns about language instability.
• “The words ‘racism’ and ‘racist’ have become deeply entrenched in the moral vocabulary of the United States and Western Europe” (Blum, 2002, p. 205).
• This insight is relevant for semiotic studies, as it suggests that racial discourse is shaped by shifting linguistic meanings rather than fixed realities.

4. Reader-Response Theory

• Blum’s discussion of racial discomfort and anxiety contributes to Reader-Response Theory, particularly regarding how audiences interpret racialized texts.
• He argues that not all racial unease is due to racism, stating, “Racial discomfort is quite common… but it is not, in itself, racist” (Blum, 2002, p. 213).
• This aligns with Stanley Fish’s notion of interpretive communities, where racial interpretation varies depending on cultural context and personal experience.
• It highlights that literature containing racial themes may be interpreted differently depending on the racial awareness and biases of the reader.

5. New Historicism

• Blum’s emphasis on historical context in defining racism supports New Historicism, which argues that texts must be understood within their historical and cultural conditions.
• He stresses that racial stereotypes must be evaluated in both their historical and contemporary significance, writing, “Stereotypes must be viewed historically as well as contemporarily, and a given stereotype’s resonance with a much more distinctly racist stereotype renders it objectionable” (Blum, 2002, p. 212).
• This reinforces New Historicist approaches that contextualize literary depictions of race within broader historical power structures.

6. Ethical Criticism

• Blum’s moral argument about the overuse of racism as a term contributes to Ethical Criticism, which evaluates literature based on its moral implications.
• He argues that if all racial issues are labeled as “racist,” moral accountability is lost, stating, “The burden placed on the term ‘racism’ when it is used to describe all racial problems leads to a dilution of its significance” (Blum, 2002, p. 209).
• This aligns with ethical critics like Martha Nussbaum, who emphasize precision in moral critique within literature.

7. Intersectionality in Feminist Theory

• Blum’s broadening of racial discourse beyond black/white binaries contributes to Intersectionality Theory, which examines race, gender, and class together.
• He highlights how Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian-Americans are often excluded from race discussions, stating, “Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian-Americans may not be certain how to insert themselves into a discourse which seems to them dominated by ‘black/white’ issues” (Blum, 2002, p. 204).
• This aligns with Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectional critique of race and gender as multifaceted rather than monolithic.

1. Oversimplification of Racism’s Structural Nature

• Some scholars argue that Blum’s focus on individual acts of racism (antipathy and inferiorizing racism) does not fully address structural and institutional racism.
• Critics from Critical Race Theory (CRT) contend that racism is deeply embedded in legal, economic, and political institutions, not just in individual attitudes (Blum, 2002, p. 210).
• Blum’s emphasis on distinguishing racial issues from racism might distract from systemic oppression and racial inequalities.

2. Risks of Downplaying Everyday Racism

• By advocating for a more nuanced moral vocabulary (racial insensitivity, racial ignorance, racial anxiety, etc.), some argue that Blum risks minimizing the harm of “less severe” racial issues (Blum, 2002, p. 207).
• Critics worry that distinguishing racism from other racial problems might allow individuals and institutions to dismiss discriminatory actions as merely “insensitive” or “ignorant” rather than truly harmful.
• This critique aligns with Toni Morrison’s idea that subtle, everyday racism can be just as damaging as overt racism.

3. Conceptual Inflation vs. Linguistic Evolution

• Blum critiques “conceptual inflation”, arguing that overusing “racism” weakens its moral force (Blum, 2002, p. 207).
• However, linguists and sociologists counter that language evolves to reflect new social realities, and broader applications of racism (such as microaggressions and systemic biases) are necessary to describe contemporary racial dynamics.
• Scholars like Ibram X. Kendi argue that racism should be recognized wherever racial disparities exist, rather than limited to historical definitions.

4. Limited Engagement with Intersectionality

• Blum’s work primarily focuses on race as an isolated category but does not deeply engage with intersectionality, the idea that race intersects with gender, class, sexuality, and disability.
• Kimberlé Crenshaw’s Intersectionality Theory criticizes frameworks that examine race without considering how multiple systems of oppression interact.
• For example, Black women experience racism and sexism simultaneously, but Blum does not fully address how these forms of discrimination overlap.

5. Eurocentric and U.S.-Centered Perspective

• Blum’s analysis of racism is largely based on U.S. racial history and Western moral philosophy (Blum, 2002, p. 203).
• Some critics argue that his framework does not sufficiently account for racial dynamics in non-Western contexts, such as caste-based discrimination in India or ethnic tensions in Africa.
• Postcolonial theorists argue that racism must be examined globally, beyond U.S. legal and social structures.

6. The Practicality of His Distinctions

• While Blum’s nuanced definitions are useful for academic discussions, critics question whether they are practical in real-world applications.
• Activists argue that insisting on differentiating “racial insensitivity” from “racism” could complicate anti-racist efforts and lead to unnecessary debates rather than action.
• Angela Davis and other anti-racist activists emphasize that naming and challenging racism directly is more important than philosophically debating definitions.

Main Ideas:

• Distinction Between Racism and Nationalism:
  • Racism and nationalism are often linked, but nationalism is a flexible ideology that can exist without racism. However, when the two align, “nationalism made racism a reality, and racism came to dominate nationalism” (Mosse, 1995, p. 163).
• Racism as an Ideology and a Totality:
  • Racism is a distinct, self-sustaining ideology that “encompasses the whole human personality—its looks, behavior, and intellect” (p. 164).
  • It is a “worldview as complete as other ideologies which evolved during the nineteenth century, such as socialism or conservatism” (p. 165).
• The Role of Aesthetics and Anthropology in Racism:
  • Racism was reinforced by scientific disciplines such as anthropology, history, and physiognomy, creating rigid standards of human appearance and superiority. “Anthropology, history, and this new aesthetic consciousness were all concerned with the search for roots, they could fulfill a longing for immutability and certainty in a world of rapid social change” (p. 164).
• The Symbolism of the Human Body in Racism:
  • Unlike nationalism, which relied on abstract symbols like flags or anthems, racism used “the human body itself as its most potent symbol” (p. 163).
  • Racial aesthetics borrowed heavily from classical Greek ideals, where “harmony, proportion, and ‘quiet greatness’ were seen as the ultimate expressions of racial superiority” (p. 166).
• Racism’s Need for a Counter-Type:
  • Racism constructs an “ideal type” and a “counter-type” (p. 169).
  • The racial enemy, whether Jews, Blacks, or other marginalized groups, was depicted as the antithesis of the racial ideal. “Through the counter-image, we obtain the greatest clarity of what our own ideals should be” (p. 171).
• Gender and Racism:
  • Racism was deeply gendered, with the male body serving as the primary symbol of racial superiority. “Masculinity symbolized the active life, the hope for the victory of the race over its enemies and the subsequent construction of the ideal racist society” (p. 167).
  • Women were depicted as either mothers of the race or the nation, reinforcing strict gender roles (p. 167).
• The Political Implications of Racism and Nationalism:
  • Nationalism is flexible and has been linked with various ideologies (liberalism, conservatism, socialism), while racism is an “uncompromising worldview that does not tolerate ambiguity” (p. 165).
  • The alliance between nationalism and racism often led to extreme political movements, most notably in Nazi Germany: “Racism was the catalyst which pushed German nationalism over the edge, from discrimination to mass extermination” (p. 171).
• Racism as a Civic Religion:
  • Racism functioned as a “civic religion” with its own myths, symbols, and rituals (p. 165).
  • It promised “immutability and redemption, much like traditional religious belief” (p. 165).
• The Danger of Trivializing Racism:
  • The contemporary misuse of the term “racism” dilutes its historical significance. “A tendency to trivialize racism has been much more common; to make use of the term in contemporary polemics in order to designate all those acts which create or maintain disadvantage” (p. 164).
• Conclusion: Nationalism Can Resist Racism:
  • While nationalism has historically aligned with racism, it does not have to be racist. “Coming to understand the relationship between racism and nationalism should lead us to build upon the fact that nationalism, as patriotism, always managed to resist the racist temptation” (p. 173).

Key Takeaways:

• Racism is a rigid, totalizing ideology, while nationalism is more flexible.
• The human body serves as the primary symbol in racist ideology, reinforcing stereotypes of superiority and inferiority.
• Racism constructs a “counter-type” as a necessary enemy to its racial ideal.
• While nationalism and racism have often merged, nationalism is not inherently racist and has alternative, more inclusive traditions.
• Understanding the distinction between the two is essential to resisting racism’s influence in nationalist movements.

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Influence on the Representation of the Other:
  • Mosse explores how racism constructs the “counter-type” as an enemy figure, a central concern in postcolonial studies.
  • “Racism depended upon the existence of its enemies, it had always defined itself as at war against hostile and inferior races” (Mosse, 1995, p. 169).
• Racial Stereotyping and Colonial Discourse:
  • His analysis of bodily aesthetics in racial ideology parallels colonial narratives that portray the colonized as inferior based on physical features.
  • “The very construction of the human body, its size, sinews, muscles and bones, were made to bear witness to the superiority or inferiority of a race and its culture” (p. 165).

2. Structuralism and Semiotics

• Symbolism in National and Racial Identity:
  • Mosse highlights how nationalism and racism use symbols to construct meaning, resonating with semiotic analyses of cultural narratives.
  • “Nationalism could annex many of the ideas and the stereotype I have discussed because it too was based upon the principle of separateness” (p. 168).
• Binary Oppositions in Racial Ideology:
  • The racial “ideal type” versus “counter-type” functions as a binary structure akin to Levi-Strauss’s structuralist oppositions (e.g., civilized vs. uncivilized).
  • “Through the counter-image we obtain the greatest clarity of what our own ideals should be” (p. 171).

3. Feminist Literary Theory & Gender Studies

• Masculinity as a National and Racial Ideal:
  • Mosse examines how racial ideology constructs masculinity as an active, dominant force while relegating women to reproductive roles.
  • “Masculinity symbolized the active life, the hope for the victory of the race over its enemies and the subsequent construction of the ideal racist society” (p. 167).
• Gendered Nationalism and the Role of Women:
  • Women in nationalist discourse are depicted either as “mothers of the nation” or passive figures, reinforcing patriarchal ideals in literature and cultural narratives.
  • “Women as public symbols were either mothers of the family or mothers of the nation, such as Germania, Britannia or the sedate Marianne” (p. 167).

4. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

• Racial Stereotypes and Projection:
  • The racial counter-type functions as a projection of societal fears, similar to Freud’s theory of the “Other” as a repressed desire or anxiety.
  • “The racial myths are familiar enough, they concern the faraway origins, the hardships and triumphs of the race, leading to redemption when the race wars are won” (p. 165).
• Racism as an Unconscious Collective Desire:
  • The need for absolute racial purity mirrors psychoanalytic anxieties about contamination, reflecting the superego’s imposition of rigid ideological purity.
  • “Racism leaves nothing to chance. Whether it legitimizes itself through science or through pseudo-historical scholarship, it does not tolerate what Ezra Pound once called an ‘Indeterminate Wobble’” (p. 165).

5. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Racism as a Socially Constructed Ideology:
  • Mosse’s work supports CRT’s assertion that race is not biologically determined but a social construct shaped by historical narratives.
  • “Racism as a political slogan could lead to such absurdities as the United Nations first declaring that Zionism is racism, and then repealing this assertion, as if racism’s finality was not one of its chief and most fateful characteristics” (p. 164).
• The Institutionalization of Racism Through Nationalism:
  • His analysis of how nationalism made racism operational aligns with CRT’s focus on systemic racism.
  • “Nationalism made racism a reality, and racism came to dominate nationalism once an alliance between the two movements had been consummated” (p. 163).

6. Cultural Studies & Identity Theory

• The Construction of National Identity Through Aesthetic Ideals:
  • Mosse shows how national identity is shaped through visual and literary representations, influencing cultural studies’ analysis of media and literature.
  • “Anthropology, history, and this new aesthetic consciousness were all concerned with the search for roots, they could fulfill a longing for immutability and certainty in a world of rapid social change” (p. 164).
• Populism and the Role of Nationalism in Culture:
  • His analysis of nationalist movements as populist forces informs cultural studies on how political ideologies manipulate cultural identity.
  • “The racist utopia was populist, it stood outside the present political system” (p. 172).

1. Overemphasis on European Context

• Mosse’s analysis is heavily Eurocentric, focusing primarily on racism and nationalism in Europe while neglecting parallel developments in colonial and postcolonial settings.
• Critics argue that his framework does not fully account for non-Western experiences of racism and nationalism, such as in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

2. Underestimation of Economic Factors

• Mosse emphasizes cultural and aesthetic elements of racism but does not sufficiently engage with economic motivations behind racist ideologies.
• Some scholars argue that racism was not just about aesthetics and nationalism but was deeply tied to economic exploitation, capitalism, and colonial labor systems.

3. Lack of Intersectional Analysis

• His work does not engage deeply with intersectionality, particularly how race interacts with class, gender, and sexuality.
• While he discusses gendered aspects of nationalism, some feminist scholars believe his analysis lacks depth in examining how women of different races experienced racism differently.

4. Limited Discussion on Resistance and Counter-Narratives

• The book focuses on how racism and nationalism became dominant ideologies but offers little analysis of anti-racist movements, resistance literature, or alternative nationalist movements that opposed racism.
• Critics argue that he does not sufficiently discuss figures and movements that challenged racist nationalism from within their own national traditions.

5. Ambiguous Stance on Nationalism

• Mosse acknowledges that nationalism does not necessarily have to be racist, but he does not provide a clear theoretical framework for distinguishing between inclusive and exclusive forms of nationalism.
• Some critics argue that this ambiguity leaves room for misinterpretation and fails to fully address how nationalism can be reformed to resist racism.

6. Oversimplification of Racist Ideology

• Some scholars believe Mosse portrays racism as a rigid and self-contained ideology without fully exploring its fluidity and adaptability in different historical and political contexts.
• The book does not explore how contemporary forms of racism have evolved beyond 19th and 20th-century frameworks.

7. Insufficient Engagement with Contemporary Theories of Race

• Since Mosse’s work was published in 1995, it does not engage with more recent developments in critical race theory, postcolonial theory, and decolonial studies.
• Some scholars argue that his analysis, while insightful, does not incorporate more recent critiques of Eurocentrism and white supremacy in global contexts.

Main Ideas:

1. Chinua Achebe’s Critique of Conrad’s Racism
   • Achebe argues that Heart of Darkness is fundamentally racist because it portrays Africa as “the other world,” representing the “antithesis of Europe and civilization” (Brantlinger, p. 363).
   • He criticizes Conrad as “a bloody racist” who perpetuates comforting myths about Africa, arguing that white racism is so normalized that its presence in literature often goes unnoticed (p. 363).
2. Defenses of Conrad’s Alleged Racism
   • Critics like Cedric Watts argue that Conrad and Achebe are ultimately on the same side, suggesting that Heart of Darkness actually debunks racist imperialist myths (p. 364).
   • While acknowledging Conrad’s use of racist language, Watts contends that Conrad rises above racism through his critique of imperialism (p. 364).
3. Anti-Imperialist Themes in Heart of Darkness
   • Many scholars interpret the novel as an exposé of European imperialism, particularly in King Leopold II’s Congo (p. 365).
   • Marlow’s declaration that “the conquest of the earth … is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much” (p. 365) demonstrates Conrad’s recognition of the brutality of imperialism.
4. Impressionism as a Narrative Device
   • Brantlinger explores how Conrad’s impressionistic style creates ambiguity in the novel, making it difficult to determine whether Heart of Darkness is primarily anti-imperialist or racist (p. 365).
   • The use of multiple narrative filters, such as Marlow and the anonymous primary narrator, complicates the question of Conrad’s stance on imperialism and racism (p. 366).
5. Conrad’s Knowledge of Atrocities in the Congo
   • Conrad was appalled by the horrors of King Leopold’s rule, which he learned about both from his experiences in 1890 and from later reports, including those by the Congo Reform Association (p. 366).
   • Leopold’s regime led to the deaths of an estimated six million Congolese, with systematic forced labor, mutilations, and mass killings (p. 366).
6. Contradictory Portrayals of Africa
   • Despite Conrad’s condemnation of European imperialism, his depiction of Africa and Africans is deeply racialized.
   • He portrays Africa as a place of darkness, savagery, and cannibalism, reinforcing Victorian racist tropes (p. 371).
   • Brantlinger argues that, while Conrad critiques imperialism, he also presents Africa as the ultimate site of primitivism and horror, making the novel complicit in racist ideology (p. 371).
7. The Role of Kurtz as a Symbol
   • Kurtz represents both the excesses of imperialism and the abyss of human corruption (p. 372).
   • Some critics, such as Lionel Trilling, see Kurtz as a “hero of the spirit,” while others recognize him as a nihilistic figure whose final words—”The horror! The horror!”—reflect the moral collapse of imperialist ideology (p. 378).
   • Brantlinger suggests that Kurtz’s character is deliberately ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretations (p. 378).
8. Marlow’s Complicity and the “Hollow Voice”
   • Marlow admires Kurtz despite recognizing his atrocities, highlighting a contradiction in the novel’s moral stance (p. 379).
   • Brantlinger connects Kurtz’s “hollow voice” to Conrad’s own literary style, suggesting that Heart of Darkness itself is trapped in the same contradictions it critiques (p. 381).
   • The novel’s impressionistic ambiguity allows it to be both a critique of and a product of imperialist ideology (p. 381).
9. Conrad’s View of Imperialism and Nihilism
   • Conrad’s critique of empire is not necessarily anti-imperialist; rather, he mourns the loss of “true” imperialism, which he saw as a noble enterprise now corrupted by greed (p. 382).
   • Brantlinger argues that Heart of Darkness ultimately reflects Conrad’s own disillusionment with modern civilization and art, portraying a world where ideals have collapsed into fraud and nihilism (p. 382).
10. Final Assessment of Heart of Darkness
    • Brantlinger acknowledges the novel’s enduring power, arguing that it remains one of the few pre-World War I British novels that critically examines imperialism (p. 383).
    • However, its anti-imperialist message is undercut by its racism and impressionistic style, which obscure its political stance (p. 383).
    • Ultimately, Heart of Darkness is a novel about the failure of meaning itself—its final message is “the horror” of civilization’s own emptiness (p. 384).

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Critique of Imperialist Discourse:

• Brantlinger engages with Heart of Darkness as both a critique and an embodiment of colonial ideology. He acknowledges that the novel exposes the atrocities of Belgian rule but simultaneously reinforces racist views.
• “Heart of Darkness expresses not only what Conrad saw and partially recorded in his ‘Congo Diary,’ but also the revelations of atrocities which began appearing in the British press as early as 1888” (p. 366).
• This aligns with postcolonial theory’s concern with how colonial narratives construct and reinforce power dynamics.
• Manichean Oppositions in Colonial Discourse:

• He highlights how Conrad reproduces binary oppositions (light/dark, civilization/savagery), a central concern in postcolonial theory.
• “Despite momentous departures from traditional European usage . . . the fiction gravitates back to established practice, registering the view of two incompatible orders within a Manichean universe” (p. 371).
• This reflects Fanonian and Said’s critiques of colonial literature’s reliance on polarized worldviews.
• Response to Achebe’s Critique:

• Brantlinger situates his argument within Chinua Achebe’s famous criticism that Heart of Darkness is racist.
• “Achebe is therefore right to call Conrad’s portrayal of Africa and Africans ‘racist'” (p. 371).
• By engaging with Achebe, Brantlinger contributes to postcolonial debates over whether Conrad’s novel subverts or reinforces imperialism.

2. Marxist Literary Theory

• Imperialism as Economic Exploitation:

• Brantlinger aligns with Marxist critiques of imperialism, showing how Heart of Darkness reveals the economic motives behind colonialism.
• “To tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe” (p. 370).
• This aligns with Lenin’s view of imperialism as an economic venture.
• Commodity Fetishism:

• Drawing on Edward Said, Brantlinger suggests that Conrad critiques the commodification of African land and people under capitalism.
• “Imperialism itself is perceived as the dark within Europe . . . yet despite momentous departures, the fiction gravitates back to established practice” (p. 371).
• This reflects Marxist concerns with how ideology masks economic exploitation.

3. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

• Kurtz as the Freudian Id:

• Brantlinger connects Kurtz’s descent into savagery with Freudian theories of the unconscious, particularly the id.
• “It little matters what, in terms of psychological symbolism, we . . . say [Kurtz] represents: whether the Freudian id or the Jungian shadow or more vaguely the outlaw” (p. 375).
• This aligns with Freudian interpretations that see Heart of Darkness as an exploration of suppressed desires.
• The Novel as a Psychological Journey:

• Heart of Darkness is interpreted as an inward psychological journey where Kurtz represents repressed European desires.
• “Guerard adds that ‘it little matters what, in terms of psychological symbolism, we . . . say [Kurtz] represents: whether the Freudian id or the Jungian shadow or more vaguely the outlaw'” (p. 375).
• This aligns with psychoanalytic readings of literature as an expression of repressed impulses.

4. Formalism & Narratology

• Impressionism and Narrative Ambiguity:

• Brantlinger discusses how Conrad’s impressionistic style complicates the novel’s meaning.
• “The narrative frame filters everything that is said not just through Marlow, but also through the anonymous primary narrator” (p. 365).
• This contributes to narratological discussions of unreliable narration.
• Schizophrenic Textuality (Fredric Jameson’s Contribution):

• He applies Fredric Jameson’s theory of “schizophrenic writing,” arguing that Conrad’s novel simultaneously critiques and embodies imperialist ideology.
• “Conrad’s fiction betrays a symptomatic split between a modernist ‘will to style’ and the reified, mass culture tendencies of romance conventions” (p. 374).
• This aligns with postmodernist and narratological critiques of textual contradictions.

5. New Historicism

• Contextualizing Heart of Darkness in Imperial History:

• Brantlinger situates the novel within historical events such as King Leopold’s atrocities in the Congo.
• “The bloodiest period in the history of Leopold’s regime began about a year later” (p. 368).
• This approach reflects New Historicist concerns with embedding literary texts in their socio-political contexts.
• Conrad’s Engagement with Colonial Propaganda:

• He examines how Heart of Darkness reflects and critiques the propaganda justifying imperialism.
• “More revolting to see without a mask was that falsehood which had been hiding under the words which for ages had spurred men to noble deeds” (p. 367).
• This aligns with New Historicist critiques of language as a tool of power.

6. Deconstruction

• The Collapse of Meaning in Heart of Darkness:

• Brantlinger explores how Conrad’s language undoes its own messages.
• “Conrad constructs a story in which the ‘meaning’ does not lie at the center, not even at ‘the heart of darkness,’ but elsewhere, in ‘misty halos’ and ‘moonshine'” (p. 375).
• This aligns with Derridean deconstruction, where texts subvert their own intended meanings.
• Undermining the Stability of Binary Oppositions:

• While Heart of Darkness relies on light/dark and civilization/savagery oppositions, it also destabilizes them.
• “Viewed one way, Conrad’s anti-imperialist story condemns the murderous racism of Kurtz’s imperative. Viewed another way, Conrad’s racist story voices that very imperative” (p. 381).
• This aligns with Derrida’s argument that texts contain the seeds of their own deconstruction.

1. Lack of Empirical Evidence

• The article relies heavily on theoretical frameworks from Balibar and Malahov but does not provide substantial empirical data to support claims about racism’s evolution in different societies (Zamkovaya, 2014, p. 65).
• It lacks specific case studies or statistical evidence to illustrate how neo-racism operates in practice.

2. Overgeneralization of Multiculturalism as Racism

• The claim that multiculturalism is a disguised form of racism (Zhizhek, 2005, p. 110) is debatable, as it does not account for contexts where multicultural policies promote inclusion and diversity.
• Zamkovaya’s reliance on Malahov’s critique of multiculturalism (Malahov, 2007, p. 153) does not fully engage with the positive aspects of multicultural policies, particularly in Western democracies.

3. Limited Engagement with Non-European Perspectives

• The discussion of postcolonial racism focuses primarily on Western and Russian scholars (Balibar, Malahov, and Freud) while neglecting important voices from the Global South, such as Frantz Fanon or Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o.
• This Eurocentric bias weakens the analysis by ignoring how postcolonial racism manifests differently in non-Western societies.

4. Insufficient Distinction Between Nationalism and Racism

• Although the study argues that nationalism can exist without racism (Arendt, 1951, p. 206), it does not fully explore cases where nationalism inherently leads to racial discrimination.
• The assumption that “protective nationalism” (Thomson, 2008, p. 32) is free of exclusionary practices is questionable, as nationalism often creates in-group vs. out-group dynamics.

5. Theoretical Inconsistencies

• Zamkovaya’s discussion of cultural racism vs. biological racism is somewhat contradictory—while claiming that neo-racism is based on cultural exclusion, she also acknowledges the persistence of ethnic-biological racism (Malahov, 2007, p. 32).
• The study does not sufficiently address how these two forms of racism intersect in contemporary discourse.

6. Minimal Focus on Contemporary Globalization and Digital Racism

• The article primarily analyzes racism in traditional contexts (colonialism, migration, and multiculturalism) but does not consider how racism manifests in digital spaces, such as social media and AI-based discrimination.
• The role of globalization in reshaping racism in the 21st century is underexplored.