“The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall: Summary and Critique

“The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall first appeared in the October journal, Volume 53, titled The Humanities as Social Technology, published in Summer 1990 by MIT Press.

"The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities" by Stuart Hall: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall

“The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall first appeared in the October journal, Volume 53, titled The Humanities as Social Technology, published in Summer 1990 by MIT Press. Hall’s essay critically examines the development of cultural studies within the context of the evolving relationship between the humanities and social technology. Rooted in the British postwar period, Hall reflects on his experiences at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, a pioneering hub for cultural studies. He contextualizes the discipline’s emergence as a response to the crisis in the humanities and the broader transformations in British society, particularly the dissolution of traditional class structures and the rise of consumer culture. Hall challenges the elitist, exclusionary traditions of literary theory and the humanities, advocating for an interdisciplinary, politically engaged approach. This work underscores the importance of literary theory and cultural studies in addressing societal change and resisting hegemonic narratives, asserting their role as tools for understanding and shaping the cultural and political landscape.

Summary of “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall

Origins and Nature of Cultural Studies

  • Context of Emergence: Cultural studies originated in Britain as a response to postwar cultural and social changes, focusing on the disintegration of traditional class cultures and the impact of consumer society (Hall, 1990, p. 11).
  • Interdisciplinary Roots: It is described as an adaptive and conjunctural practice, emerging from debates on cultural and social transformations and influenced by various disciplines without aligning strictly with any (Hall, 1990, p. 12).
  • Critical Perspective: The field was established in a space of academic hostility, challenging the rigidity of traditional humanities and the suspicion it faced from established disciplines (Hall, 1990, p. 13).

The Humanities and Their Crisis

  • Hostility to Cultural Studies: Early cultural studies faced strong opposition from humanities scholars who perceived it as a threat to the traditional academic framework (Hall, 1990, p. 14).
  • Ideological Critique: Cultural studies critically examined the humanities’ ideological foundations and their role in sustaining national culture, often exposing the humanities’ hidden regulatory functions (Hall, 1990, p. 15).
  • Institutional Challenges: Despite its interdisciplinary approach, cultural studies was marginalized in academic settings, operating on the periphery with minimal resources and recognition (Hall, 1990, p. 16).

Intellectual and Pedagogical Innovations

  • Rejection of Discipline Boundaries: Cultural studies engaged in “raids” on traditional disciplines like sociology and humanities, adopting relevant methodologies while challenging established paradigms (Hall, 1990, p. 17).
  • Focus on Practical Relevance: It emphasized studying contemporary cultural forms and their political implications, urging students to engage with real-world cultural and political issues (Hall, 1990, p. 18).
  • Theoretical Foundations: Drawing heavily from the translation of European theorists like Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, cultural studies developed its unique theoretical models (Hall, 1990, p. 19).

The Political Role of Cultural Studies

  • Cultural Crisis and Resistance: Hall highlighted cultural studies’ role in addressing the exclusions and inequalities inherent in British national culture, particularly its postcolonial and hegemonic dimensions (Hall, 1990, p. 20).
  • Education as Engagement: Unlike traditional academic programs, cultural studies sought to empower students with a critical understanding of culture’s role in societal transformations (Hall, 1990, p. 21).
  • Interdisciplinary Risk: The work demanded intellectual risks, as it often opposed mainstream disciplinary norms to construct new frameworks for understanding culture (Hall, 1990, p. 22).

Contemporary Challenges and Relevance

  • Humanities Under Siege: The crisis of the humanities is framed within the broader cultural and educational changes, marked by challenges from social technologies and shifting national identities (Hall, 1990, p. 23).
  • Thatcherism and National Culture: Hall connected the crisis to Thatcher-era policies, which sought to reinforce a rigid national identity against perceived cultural threats (Hall, 1990, p. 23).
  • Global and Local Dynamics: The text critiques the humanities for failing to adequately address the global and intersectional complexities of modern cultural life, emphasizing cultural studies’ continued relevance in bridging these gaps (Hall, 1990, p. 23).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall
Theoretical Term/ConceptExplanationContext in the Article
Conjunctural PracticeThe idea that cultural studies evolve in response to specific historical and social conditions.Hall describes cultural studies as not fixed but adapting to the conjuncture of postwar Britain (Hall, 1990, p. 12).
Crisis in the HumanitiesA challenge to the traditional role and scope of the humanities in the face of modern changes.The humanities are critiqued for their inability to address societal transformations and for their exclusionary ideologies (Hall, 1990, p. 14).
Ideological CritiqueExamination of the hidden regulatory and ideological functions within academic disciplines.Cultural studies expose how the humanities serve as custodians of national culture and maintain class hierarchies (Hall, 1990, p. 15).
InterdisciplinarityCombining methods and theories from multiple academic disciplines to study culture.Cultural studies engage sociology, anthropology, and humanities, rejecting siloed approaches (Hall, 1990, p. 17).
HegemonyA concept from Gramsci referring to the dominance of one group’s cultural norms over others.Hall applies this to examine the interplay between culture and politics in shaping societal values (Hall, 1990, p. 18).
Gramscian ProjectA focus on understanding the “national popular” and its transformations within hegemonic power.The Center for Cultural Studies explored cultural shifts and resistance within a Gramscian framework (Hall, 1990, p. 18).
Cultural PoliticsThe study of how cultural expressions intersect with political power and societal structures.Cultural studies investigate issues like postcolonial identity, class struggles, and media influence (Hall, 1990, p. 20).
DemystificationRevealing hidden power structures and ideological biases in cultural and academic practices.Cultural studies challenge the neutrality claimed by the humanities, showing their role in national identity formation (Hall, 1990, p. 15).
Social TechnologyThe use of knowledge systems, like the humanities, to shape and regulate societal norms.Hall critiques the humanities as a form of social technology maintaining national and cultural hierarchies (Hall, 1990, p. 23).
MarginalityThe peripheral position of cultural studies within traditional academia.Hall emphasizes the marginal status of cultural studies, symbolized by its physical and institutional exclusion (Hall, 1990, p. 16).
Translation of KnowledgeBridging theoretical knowledge with practical applications for societal impact.Cultural studies aim to connect theory with real-world cultural and political problems (Hall, 1990, p. 21).
Postcolonial CrisisThe cultural and identity struggles of Britain after the end of its imperial era.Hall connects the fragmentation of British culture to its colonial history and rising diversity (Hall, 1990, p. 22).
Contribution of “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall to Literary Theory/Theories

TheoryContribution from Hall’s ArticleReferences from the Article
PoststructuralismHall underscores the fluid and interdisciplinary nature of cultural studies, which aligns with the poststructuralist rejection of fixed categories. He critiques the foundational presumptions of the humanities, including their elitism and the notion of a singular, coherent “national culture.”Hall describes cultural studies as a “conjunctural practice” that rejects static frameworks and emphasizes the contingency of theoretical paradigms (Hall, p. 12). His critique of the Leavisite tradition also reflects poststructuralist skepticism toward cultural hierarchies and stable meanings (Hall, pp. 13-14).
Marxist Literary TheoryBy aligning cultural studies with the analysis of power, class, and hegemony, Hall expands Marxist approaches to include cultural formations. He draws on Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony” to address how dominant ideologies shape societal structures and identities.Hall discusses the role of cultural studies in engaging with “hegemonic practices” and understanding the “national popular” (Hall, p. 18). He emphasizes the need for intellectuals to analyze the intersections of culture and politics as part of broader social struggles, invoking Gramsci’s framework (Hall, p. 19).
Feminist TheoryHall acknowledges the contributions of feminist critiques in destabilizing canonical traditions and illuminating the marginalization within cultural hierarchies. Cultural studies, as he articulates, incorporates feminist insights into gender and power structures.He notes that feminist and Black struggles have “opened up new theoretical positions,” which cultural studies must integrate to address larger historical and political crises (Hall, p. 23). This recognition emphasizes feminism’s influence on challenging patriarchal assumptions in traditional humanities frameworks.
Postcolonial TheoryHall situates cultural studies within the context of postcolonial challenges to Eurocentric traditions. He examines Britain’s struggle with national identity amidst postcolonial migration and cultural diversity, reflecting the theoretical concerns of hybridity and otherness.Hall critiques the “Arnoldian project” for its exclusionary construction of “national culture” (Hall, p. 14). He also discusses the cultural crisis resulting from Britain’s postcolonial reality, asking, “Can one be English and Black? English and Muslim?” (Hall, p. 22), which directly engages with postcolonial discourses of identity and representation.
Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)Hall credits the Frankfurt School as a foundational influence on cultural studies, particularly in understanding the interplay between culture and ideology in mass society. He integrates their focus on media, culture industries, and power relations into the practice of cultural studies.He acknowledges the translation of Frankfurt School works in the 1960s and 1970s as essential to the development of cultural studies, particularly their critique of commodification and mass culture (Hall, p. 17). This lineage situates cultural studies as a continuation of critical theory’s interrogation of cultural production and hegemony.
Reader-Response TheoryBy focusing on how audiences and individuals actively interpret media and texts, Hall aligns with reader-response perspectives. He highlights the necessity of analyzing how cultural products are received and contested within specific contexts.Hall emphasizes understanding cultural formations as “practical work” informed by audience engagement and interpretation, which challenges traditional notions of authorial control (Hall, p. 16). This reflects the shift toward privileging the reader’s role in constructing meaning, a key tenet of reader-response theory.
Cultural MaterialismHall’s focus on the material conditions shaping cultural practices and the institutional context of the humanities resonates with cultural materialism. He critiques the humanities for their detachment from contemporary social realities and advocates for a materialist analysis of culture and politics.Hall’s critique of the humanities as a “bastion” of elitism and his emphasis on studying “contemporary cultural forms” (Hall, p. 16) reflect cultural materialism’s concern with historical context and the interplay between ideology and cultural artifacts. His description of the humanities’ role in shaping national identity underscores its materialist dimensions (Hall, p. 22).
PostmodernismHall critiques postmodernism for its potential detachment from social realities while acknowledging its contributions to destabilizing traditional hierarchies. He warns against the risks of postmodernism becoming a lament for the “departure from the center of the world.”Hall critiques postmodernism’s tendency toward abstraction, asking whether it can contribute meaningfully to the resolution of cultural crises (Hall, p. 23). At the same time, he acknowledges its theoretical insights into fragmentation and the decentering of power.
IntersectionalityAlthough not explicitly using the term, Hall integrates an intersectional perspective by addressing how race, class, gender, and ethnicity intersect in the construction of cultural identities. He examines the role of cultural studies in addressing these overlapping systems of power.Hall discusses the “pluralization of ethnicity” in Britain and the “contestation of the margins for cultural power” (Hall, p. 22). His exploration of intersecting identities—such as being “English and Black”—reflects the principles of intersectionality in understanding cultural and social dynamics (Hall, p. 22).

Examples of Critiques Through “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall

Literary WorkCritique through Hall’s FrameworkKey Concepts from Hall’s Article
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph ConradUsing Hall’s emphasis on postcolonial critique, Heart of Darkness can be analyzed as a text reflecting and reinforcing the imperialist ideologies of its time. The portrayal of Africa as a “dark” and “uncivilized” place underscores the colonialist construction of “the Other.” Cultural studies would interrogate how the text’s reception shifted over time to embrace anti-colonial readings.– Postcolonial critique: Hall’s question of “Who now can be English?” parallels the imperial identity crises in Conrad’s narrative (Hall, p. 22).
– Cultural formations: Hall’s discussion of cultural change and representation highlights the ideological work in portraying Africa as “other” and Europe as “civilized” (Hall, p. 16).
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane AustenFrom Hall’s feminist lens, Pride and Prejudice reflects the rigid gender norms of its historical moment. However, a cultural studies critique would examine how Elizabeth Bennet challenges patriarchal expectations, making the text a site of negotiation between traditional and emergent cultural norms.– Feminist theory: Hall’s acknowledgment of feminist contributions (Hall, p. 23) aligns with the analysis of gender roles and Elizabeth’s agency.
– Cultural shifts: The evolving class and marriage dynamics can be contextualized within Hall’s focus on “fluidity” in social structures (Hall, p. 12).
“Beloved” by Toni MorrisonHall’s focus on marginalized identities and histories can be used to critique Beloved as a reclamation of African American narratives erased by dominant cultural discourses. Morrison’s portrayal of slavery challenges the traditional canon by centering Black voices and experiences, emphasizing cultural memory as resistance.– Marginalized voices: Hall’s critique of exclusionary “national culture” and his focus on “the pluralization of ethnicity” (Hall, p. 22) align with Morrison’s recovery of African American stories.
– Intersectionality: Hall’s emphasis on the interplay of race, gender, and class (Hall, p. 22) is central to understanding the trauma and resilience in Beloved.
“1984” by George OrwellThrough Hall’s lens of ideological critique, 1984 illustrates the mechanisms of cultural hegemony and control. Cultural studies would analyze how the state manipulates language (Newspeak) and media to maintain power, reflecting Hall’s focus on the intersection of culture, politics, and ideology.– Cultural hegemony: Hall’s invocation of Gramsci’s framework (Hall, p. 19) provides a basis for understanding Orwell’s depiction of totalitarianism.
– Language and power: Hall’s discussion of the humanities’ role in shaping national narratives connects with Orwell’s exploration of language as a tool of control (Hall, p. 22).
Criticism Against “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall
  • Ambiguity in Defining Cultural Studies:
    • Critics argue that Hall does not provide a clear or fixed definition of cultural studies, leaving it open to misinterpretation and dilution.
    • The lack of a cohesive framework for cultural studies as a discipline might hinder its institutional and academic legitimacy.
  • Overemphasis on British Context:
    • Hall’s analysis is deeply rooted in the British sociopolitical and academic environment, potentially limiting its applicability to global contexts.
    • The examples and struggles discussed might not resonate with non-British audiences or institutions.
  • Neglect of Practical Solutions for the Humanities:
    • While Hall critiques the crisis of the humanities, he offers limited practical strategies to address funding cuts, marginalization, or ideological attacks in higher education.
    • The focus on critique over actionable steps is seen as a gap by those seeking solutions to the crisis.
  • Perceived Partisanship:
    • Hall’s alignment with leftist ideologies and critiques of Thatcherism may alienate scholars who seek a more politically neutral or diverse perspective.
    • His criticism of traditional humanist disciplines might be viewed as dismissive rather than reformative.
  • Intellectual Elitism:
    • Despite advocating for inclusivity and addressing marginalized voices, Hall’s theoretical complexity and reliance on figures like Gramsci, Althusser, and Benjamin can seem inaccessible to non-specialists.
    • This paradox raises questions about the accessibility of cultural studies to the very communities it aims to empower.
  • Overgeneralization of Humanities’ Crisis:
    • Some argue that Hall exaggerates the “crisis” in the humanities, failing to recognize areas of resilience and innovation within traditional disciplines.
    • The dichotomy he establishes between cultural studies and humanities may overlook their potential for mutual enrichment.
  • Neglect of Postcolonial and Non-Western Perspectives:
    • While Hall critiques Eurocentrism and cultural hegemony, his work itself is critiqued for insufficient engagement with postcolonial theorists outside Europe.
    • Scholars from the Global South might find his focus on British and European intellectual traditions limited.
  • Criticism of Methodology:
    • The interdisciplinary nature of cultural studies is sometimes viewed as a “jack of all trades, master of none” approach, diluting rigorous disciplinary methodologies.
    • Hall’s raids on traditional disciplines like sociology, anthropology, and humanities might be seen as opportunistic rather than constructive.
  • Tension with Deconstructionists and Postmodernists:
    • While Hall critiques postmodernism for its lack of political engagement, proponents of postmodernism argue that his critique misunderstands its subversive potential.
    • The rejection of postmodernist approaches could be seen as limiting in addressing complex cultural dynamics.
  • Institutional Challenges in Academia:
    • Hall’s vision of cultural studies as an interdisciplinary practice has faced challenges in being institutionalized in traditional academic structures, leading to questions about its sustainability.
Representative Quotations from “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Cultural studies was then, and has been ever since, an adaptation to its terrain; it has been a conjunctural practice.”Hall emphasizes that cultural studies evolved in response to the socio-political and cultural conditions of the times. It was not bound to a single methodology or tradition but was contextually adaptive, reflecting its relevance in analyzing societal changes.
“In Britain, cultural studies emerged precisely from a crisis in the humanities.”Hall identifies the origins of cultural studies in Britain as a response to the inadequacies of the traditional humanities, which he perceived as failing to address contemporary societal issues.
“The attempt to describe and understand how British society was changing was at the center of the political debate in the 1950s.”This highlights cultural studies’ focus on understanding the transformations in British society, particularly the shifts in class, media influence, and consumer culture. It underscores its rootedness in social reality and its critical engagement with societal developments.
“Cultural studies … had to distance itself from some of the ongoing traditions in the humanities.”Hall critiques the humanities for their reluctance to engage with the ideological underpinnings of their practices. Cultural studies sought to unmask and challenge these traditions, promoting an interdisciplinary and critical approach to cultural analysis.
“Serious interdisciplinary work involves the intellectual risk of saying to professional sociologists that what they say sociology is, is not what it is.”This reflects the critical and often contentious nature of cultural studies. Hall describes its interdisciplinary approach as challenging established boundaries and reconfiguring academic disciplines to better address cultural phenomena.
“Cultural studies could not have developed its project … without the enormous program of translation of European work.”Hall acknowledges the foundational influence of European thinkers like Gramsci and the Frankfurt School on cultural studies. The translation and introduction of these works were pivotal in shaping its theoretical framework and methodologies.
“What we were inviting students to do was to do what we ourselves had done: to engage with some real problem out there in the dirty world.”Cultural studies encouraged practical engagement with real-world issues rather than abstract theorizing. Hall emphasizes the importance of addressing pressing societal problems as a core element of the discipline.
“The gap between theory and practice is only overcome in developing a practice in its own right.”Hall advocates for an approach that bridges theoretical insights and practical application, emphasizing that cultural studies must operate at the intersection of intellectual rigor and societal engagement.
“The humanities are invoked as the last bastion in a primarily defensive operation.”Hall critiques the humanities for becoming reactionary and resistant to change. He portrays them as entrenched in defending traditional values rather than addressing the evolving needs and crises of modern society.
“The cultural crisis now cuts into and through the humanities from beginning to end.”Hall stresses that the ongoing cultural crises, marked by issues like globalization, migration, and social inequality, necessitate a rethinking of the humanities. He argues that these disciplines are deeply implicated in and disrupted by broader societal changes, demanding an active response.
Suggested Readings: “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities” by Stuart Hall
  1. Hall, Stuart. “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities.” October, vol. 53, 1990, pp. 11–23. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/778912. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  2. Morris, Gay. “Dance Studies/Cultural Studies.” Dance Research Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 2009, pp. 82–100. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20527625. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  3. Farred, Grant. “INTRODUCTION.” Dispositio, vol. 21, no. 48, 1996, pp. v–xx. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41491522. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  4. Waters, Chris. “Raymond Williams Towards 2000.” Victorian Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, 1994, pp. 549–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3829093. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.

“Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell: Summary and Critique

“Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell first appeared in the Critical Inquiry journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Spring 1980), published by The University of Chicago Press.

"Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory" by W. J. T. Mitchell: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell

“Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell first appeared in the Critical Inquiry journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Spring 1980), published by The University of Chicago Press. This seminal essay examines the concept of spatial form as an essential lens for understanding literature, not merely as a metaphorical notion but as a structural reality integral to interpretation and experience. Mitchell critiques and extends Joseph Frank’s idea of spatial form in modernist literature, arguing that spatial form transcends temporal linearity and is a universal aspect of literary experience across cultures and epochs. He navigates the interplay between literal and metaphorical uses of spatiality, demonstrating its application to narrative, imagery, and thematic cohesion. This theory is significant in literary criticism for its challenge to conventional temporal models of literature, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue between literary studies, visual arts, and cognitive sciences, and providing a framework for exploring the semiotic and structural complexities of textual analysis.

Summary of “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell

1. Introduction: Spatiality and its Central Role in Criticism

  • Mitchell highlights how spatial form has become a cornerstone for understanding literature, fine arts, language, and culture (Mitchell, 1980, p. 539).
  • He poses key questions: Are spatial models literal or metaphorical, and how do they function as explanatory tools? (p. 540).

2. Historical Context of Spatial Form in Literary Criticism

  • Joseph Frank’s 1945 essay identified modernist literature (e.g., Eliot, Pound, Joyce) as “spatial” for replacing historical sequence with mythic simultaneity and syntactic disruption (p. 541).
  • Critics debate whether spatial form denies literature’s inherent temporality or reflects deeper aesthetic and ideological tensions (p. 542).

3. Interdependence of Spatial and Temporal Forms

  • Spatiality is integral to experiencing time; temporal metaphors often rely on spatial imagery (e.g., “long time,” “before and after”) (p. 543).
  • In literature, the text’s physical layout as a spatial form underpins both linear and simultaneous reading experiences (p. 544).

4. Reconciling Static and Dynamic Perceptions of Space

  • The misconception that spatial forms are static is rooted in Newtonian absolute space, contrasting with relational models like Leibniz’s “order of coexistent data” (p. 544-546).
  • Literary spatiality is fluid and experienced through movement, reading, and interpretation, rejecting binary oppositions of space vs. time (p. 546).

5. Spatial Form Across Genres and Historical Periods

  • Mitchell challenges the notion that spatial form is unique to modernist literature, asserting its presence in all periods (p. 547).
  • Genres like novels and poetry employ spatiality differently, from symbolic topographies to structural patterns (p. 551).

6. Four Levels of Spatiality in Literature

  • Literal Spatiality: The physical text as a spatial form, including typography and layout (p. 550).
  • Descriptive Spatiality: The represented world within the text (e.g., settings, objects, and relationships) (p. 551).
  • Structural Spatiality: Narrative and thematic patterns, such as plotlines and imagery (p. 552).
  • Metaphysical Spatiality: The interpretive whole or “vision” of meaning that emerges from the work (p. 553).

7. Literary Memory and Iconography

  • Spatial forms trace back to ancient mnemonic systems and visual imagery (e.g., Dante’s Inferno as a cosmic spatial structure) (p. 557).
  • These systems link the cognitive and aesthetic, blending memory and imagination (p. 558).

8. Romanticism, Modernism, and Shifting Spatial Patterns

  • Romantic literature emphasized open, fluid spatial forms (e.g., spirals in Wordsworth), contrasting with the decorative spatiality of earlier periods (p. 559).
  • Modernist works integrate fragmented or dynamic spatiality to reflect contemporary experience (p. 560).

9. Integrating Linguistic and Spatial Consciousness

  • Literature bridges spatial and temporal modalities, dissolving rigid distinctions between language and visual forms (p. 561).
  • The interplay between structure and perception underpins both literary and visual creativity (p. 562).

10. Spatial Form and Comparative Aesthetics

  • Mitchell advocates for cross-disciplinary studies of spatial form, linking literature, art, and science to better understand the shared cognitive and representational structures (p. 565).

11. Conclusion: The Value of Spatial Analysis

  • Recognizing spatial form enriches literary criticism by integrating analytic rigor with experiential insight (p. 567).
  • It illuminates literature’s capacity to mirror human thought and existence through dynamic, interconnected forms (p. 567).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell
Theoretical Term/ConceptExplanation/DefinitionKey References/Applications
Spatial FormA conceptual framework emphasizing spatiality as intrinsic to understanding literature and its structures.Present across genres and periods; tied to physical text layout, narrative structures, and interpretive visions (p. 547).
Temporal FormThe experience of time in literature, often visualized through spatial patterns or metaphors.Linked to continuity, sequence, and simultaneity within texts; not opposed to spatial form but interdependent (p. 544).
SimultaneityThe perception of multiple elements occurring or being understood at the same time.Central to modernist works (e.g., Eliot, Pound) that reject linear narratives (p. 541).
Synchronic vs. DiachronicSynchronic refers to spatial or simultaneous elements, while diachronic refers to sequential or temporal ones.Explored in narrative structures, plot rearrangements, and story progression (p. 553).
Literal SpatialityThe physical existence and layout of a text as a spatial form.Typography, pagination, and physical production affect reader experience (p. 550).
Descriptive SpatialityThe construction of represented worlds within literary works.Includes settings, characters, and their spatial relationships (p. 551).
Structural SpatialityThe organization of literary elements like plot, imagery, or themes into discernible patterns.Found in narrative progressions, thematic connections, and metaphorical mappings (p. 552).
Metaphysical SpatialityThe interpretive vision or “whole” meaning derived from the text.Often an elusive, nonverbal understanding of the text’s unity or essence (p. 553).
Order of Coexistent DataLeibniz’s concept defining space as an arrangement of simultaneous relationships or patterns.Highlights relational and dynamic aspects of spatiality (p. 544).
Mnemonic SystemsAncient spatial and visual methods for organizing memory and thought.Illustrated in works like Dante’s Inferno as cosmic orders of places (p. 557).
Geometry of NarrativeThe use of abstract patterns (e.g., lines, spirals) to represent narrative structures.Examples include Sterne’s diagrams in Tristram Shandy (p. 555).
Open vs. Closed FormOpen forms allow fluid, evolving interpretations, while closed forms suggest fixed, symmetrical structures.Contrasts Romantic (open) with earlier neoclassical forms (p. 559).
TectonicMitchell’s term for “global, symmetrical, gestalt-like” spatial forms.Differentiated from linear forms, akin to formal gardens (p. 561).
Linear and Tectonic OppositionThe interplay between linearity (narrative time) and tectonic structures (geometric or symmetrical forms).Seen in genres like ballads, which combine sequential and musical patterns (p. 561).
IconologyThe study of visual and symbolic systems as integral to understanding art and literature.Informs connections between literature and visual arts, especially through pictorial representation (p. 565).
Vision/Visual ImageryThe mental “seeing” of patterns, structures, or meanings in literature.Integral to criticism as a way of perceiving spatial and thematic relationships (p. 553).
Bicameral Brain TheoryA theory linking the left hemisphere to linear/verbal cognition and the right to spatial/visual thinking.Explored in relation to spatial form’s role in perception and creativity (p. 561).
Art of MemoryThe ancient practice of organizing memory through spatial and visual schemas.Basis for literary spatiality, influencing medieval allegory and cosmic designs (p. 557).
Spatial Metaphors in CriticismThe pervasive use of spatial imagery (e.g., “structure,” “levels”) to discuss literature.Reflects how criticism implicitly employs spatial thinking (p. 548).
General Theory of SpatialityMitchell’s call for a unified framework to analyze spatial forms across disciplines.Encompasses literature, visual arts, and semiotics for interdisciplinary understanding (p. 565).
Contribution of “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Spatial Form and Modernism

  • Key Contribution: Extends Joseph Frank’s notion that modernist literature emphasizes spatiality over linear temporality.
    • Example: Works by T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound disrupt narrative sequence, invoking a “mythic simultaneity” (p. 541).
    • Impact: Challenges the idea that literature is intrinsically temporal, showing how modernism prioritizes patterns, simultaneity, and disjunction.

2. Integration of Space and Time in Literary Analysis

  • Key Contribution: Argues that spatial and temporal forms are not antithetical but interdependent.
    • Space provides the framework for perceiving and organizing time (p. 544).
    • Relation to Criticism: Refutes notions that spatiality is merely metaphoric in literature, instead making it foundational to interpretation.
    • Reference: Cites Leibniz’s spatium est ordo coexistendi (“space is an order of coexistent data”) to connect spatiality with temporal processes (p. 544).

3. Structuralism and Poststructuralism

  • Key Contribution: Spatial metaphors underlie critical theories of structure and language.
    • Example: The “stratification” of texts into levels, from literal to thematic or metaphysical meanings (p. 550).
    • Impact: Relates spatial patterns to semiotics, deconstruction, and structuralism, emphasizing interconnectedness across disciplines.

4. Historical Perspectives: From Classical to Modern Forms

  • Key Contribution: Maps the evolution of spatial form across literary periods.
    • Medieval allegory: Structured as memory systems (e.g., Dante’s Divine Comedy) based on spatial and cosmic orders (p. 557).
    • Romanticism: Shifts from closed, symmetrical forms to open, evolving forms, reflecting dynamic temporal experiences (p. 558).
    • Impact on Romantic Theory: Suggests Romantic works retain spatial patterning through metaphors like the spiral and labyrinth (p. 559).

5. Interdisciplinary Connections

  • Key Contribution: Bridges literature with visual arts, music, and cognitive sciences.
    • Example: Analysis of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy reveals a “labyrinthine” spatial form mirrored in diagrammatic representations (p. 555).
    • Links to art and memory: Relates literature to the “art of memory” traditions that use spatial visualization to organize content (p. 557).
    • Impact on Comparative Arts: Shows literature’s hybrid nature, combining temporal (musical) and spatial (visual) dynamics.

6. Formalism and the Aesthetics of Space

  • Key Contribution: Advocates spatial form as essential for understanding structure and form in literature.
    • Critiques traditional binaries like “open vs. closed” or “spatial vs. temporal,” proposing a continuum of literary forms (p. 558).
    • Impact on Formalist Criticism: Deepens the analysis of form, not as static geometry but as dynamic patterns revealing textual meaning.

7. Reader Response and Cognitive Theory

  • Key Contribution: Suggests spatial form is not just in texts but emerges through the reader’s cognitive process.
    • Example: Frye’s idea of a “simultaneous apprehension” of meaning (p. 553).
    • Connection to Neuroscience: Engages with bicameral brain theory, linking linguistic and spatial cognition to hemispheric functions (p. 561).
    • Impact on Reader-Response Theory: Positions readers as co-creators of spatial patterns, bridging subjective experience and textual structure.

8. Language, Iconicity, and Semiotics

  • Key Contribution: Positions spatial form as integral to language and semiotics, challenging the privileging of temporal over spatial models.
    • Iconicity in texts: Pictorial representations in literature (e.g., visual metaphors, concrete poetry) underscore spatiality as inherent to meaning-making (p. 564).
    • Impact on Semiotics: Encourages broader theories of representation, uniting textual and visual modes under the rubric of spatiality.

9. Ethics and Political Implications

  • Key Contribution: Rebuts critiques that spatial form is politically or ethically disengaged.
    • Spatial form allows literature to encode resistance, critique, and alternative worldviews without denying historical or temporal dimensions (p. 563).
    • Impact on Cultural Criticism: Opens literature to interdisciplinary readings that connect aesthetic structure with cultural and historical meaning.

10. Toward a General Theory of Spatiality

  • Key Contribution: Calls for a unified theoretical framework to analyze spatiality across disciplines.
    • Proposes terms like “tectonic” to refine distinctions between structural forms (p. 560).
    • Advocates for examining how literature, art, and science all rely on spatial frameworks to conceptualize their subjects (p. 565).
    • Impact: Lays groundwork for cross-disciplinary studies in literature, cognitive science, and visual studies.

References to Key Theories and Critics

  • Joseph Frank: Initial theorization of spatial form in modernist literature (p. 541).
  • Rudolf Arnheim: Contributions on the psychology of visual space (p. 544).
  • Northrop Frye: Insights on spatiality in literary criticism and allegory (p. 554).
  • Jacques Derrida: Critiques of metaphoric language in spatial theories (p. 565).

Mitchell’s essay broadens the field of literary theory by demonstrating how spatiality pervades both the creation and interpretation of literature, merging aesthetics, semiotics, and cognitive processes into a unified framework.

Examples of Critiques Through “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell
Literary WorkCritique Using Spatial FormKey Concepts from MitchellKey Citation/Reference
T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land– Eliot’s fragmented narrative disrupts temporal flow, creating a simultaneity of disjointed experiences.
– Spatial form emerges as the reader maps mythic, historical, and symbolic elements into a unified whole.
– Spatial form as mythic simultaneity.
– Temporal disjunction to create coherent spatial patterns in reading.
“Spatial form in literature is not antitemporal but a way to organize time through space” (p. 544).
Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy– The narrative digressions mimic a labyrinthine spatial structure.
– Sterne explicitly uses diagrams to visualize narrative movement.
– Textual “labyrinths” and metafiction as critiques of linear narrative.
– The visual diagram as a literal spatial form.
Sterne’s use of digressive diagrams exemplifies “spatial form as both an explanatory device and a visual element” (p. 555).
Dante’s Divine Comedy– The text functions as a memory system, using layered spatial structures (Hell, Purgatory, Paradise).
– The cosmic order of spheres mirrors hierarchical spatial constructs of medieval allegory.
– Allegorical texts as organized orders of space.
– Spatial form as both descriptive and metaphysical frameworks.
“The Inferno is a cosmic order of places: a summa of similitudes and exempla arranged spatially” (p. 557).
James Joyce’s Ulysses– Joyce’s stream of consciousness disrupts narrative continuity, replacing it with a dense web of simultaneous events.
– Urban Dublin serves as a spatial framework to explore personal and historical themes.
– “Order of coexistent data” as a unifying framework.
– Urban landscapes as symbolic spatial forms.
“Spatiality allows narratives to explore simultaneity and historical resonance beyond linear progression” (p. 541).
Criticism Against “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell
  • Oversimplification of Space-Time Interaction
    • Critics argue that Mitchell’s attempt to unify spatial and temporal forms oversimplifies their distinct roles in literature and art. Temporal progression in literature cannot be fully equated with spatial constructs.
  • Misuse of “Spatial Form” as a Universal Concept
    • The application of spatial form across all historical periods and literary genres is seen as overly broad and reductive, ignoring specific historical and cultural contexts.
  • Over-reliance on Metaphor
    • Some critics highlight that much of Mitchell’s argument depends on spatial metaphors that may not correspond to actual cognitive or formal structures in texts.
  • Neglect of Reader’s Temporal Experience
    • By focusing on spatial structures, Mitchell risks downplaying the reader’s experience of time and sequence during the process of reading, which is central to literary engagement.
  • Ambiguity in Differentiating Literal and Metaphorical Space
    • Mitchell’s approach blurs the lines between literal, metaphorical, and interpretive uses of spatiality, leading to potential confusion in distinguishing actual spatial forms from interpretive frameworks.
  • Insufficient Attention to Non-Visual Dimensions
    • Critics argue that Mitchell’s emphasis on visual and geometric spatiality does not adequately account for auditory, tactile, and other sensory dimensions of literature.
  • Resistance from Traditional Formalists
    • Formalist critics reject the spatial form theory for straying from temporal and structural dynamics essential to narrative and poetic analysis.
  • Lack of Empirical Support
    • The theory relies heavily on theoretical constructs without providing sufficient empirical evidence or detailed case studies to substantiate its claims.
Representative Quotations from “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“The concept of spatial form has unquestionably been central to modern criticism … in language and culture.”Mitchell emphasizes the significance of spatiality in understanding literature and its interpretation across various fields, marking it as a critical analytical tool.
“Spatial form is the perceptual basis of our notion of time … all our temporal language is contaminated with spatial imagery.”He argues that space and time are interdependent in literary representation, with spatial imagery being foundational for conceptualizing time.
“Readers construct images of temporal or other organizational patterns in any work of literature.”Readers play an active role in mapping and interpreting spatial and temporal relationships in texts, making spatial forms central to the reading process.
“Spatial form is a crucial aspect of the experience and interpretation of literature in all ages and cultures.”Contrary to its association only with modernist texts, Mitchell asserts that spatial form underpins the structure and meaning of literature universally.
“We cannot talk about our temporal experience without invoking spatial measures.”The inseparability of spatial and temporal modes of thought underscores their mutual influence on how literature is conceptualized and analyzed.
“Spatial form is no casual metaphor but an essential feature of the interpretation and experience of literature.”Mitchell insists on the substantive role of spatial form in literary analysis, rejecting the view that it is merely metaphorical or incidental.
“Spatial thinking creeps into the work of even the most resolutely ‘temporal’ critics.”He critiques the implicit reliance on spatial metaphors in literary theories that claim to focus solely on temporality.
“The reading experience may produce the illusion of temporal sequence … but it arises out of a spatial form.”Even when literature appears predominantly temporal, it is rooted in spatial structures, highlighting their interpretive significance.
“The traditional comparison of space and time to body and soul expresses … our experience of both modalities.”By likening space to the body and time to the soul, Mitchell offers a compelling analogy for their interdependence in literature and art.
“Spatial form is our basis for making history and temporality intelligible.”He defends spatial form as essential for understanding historical and temporal dimensions within literary works.
Suggested Readings: “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory” by W. J. T. Mitchell
  1. Mitchell, W. J. T. “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 6, no. 3, 1980, pp. 539–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343108. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  2. Stewart, Jack F. “Spatial Form and Color in The Waves.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 28, no. 1, 1982, pp. 86–107. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/441446. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  3. Surette, Leon. “Rational Form in Literature.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 7, no. 3, 1981, pp. 612–21. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343121. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  4. Salvaggio, Ruth. “Theory and Space, Space and Woman.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, vol. 7, no. 2, 1988, pp. 261–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/463682. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.

“Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin: Summary and Critique

“Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin first appeared in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 2, during the Winter of 1977.

"Spatial Form and Plot" by Eric S. Rabkin: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin

“Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin first appeared in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 2, during the Winter of 1977. Published by The University of Chicago Press, this seminal essay investigates the metaphorical concept of “spatial form” in narrative plots, challenging traditional views of plot as purely temporal. Rabkin extends the Russian Formalist idea of plot as a “defamiliarized story,” exploring how narratives balance synchronic (structural) and diachronic (temporal) elements to shape a reader’s perception. By analyzing diverse texts—from classical romances to modernist literature—Rabkin critiques the oversimplification of narratives as spatial constructs, arguing instead for their dual diachronic and synchronic nature. The essay underscores the transformative power of narrative techniques, such as defamiliarization and parataxis, to evoke emotional and intellectual engagement, reaffirming the relevance of literary theory in understanding evolving narrative forms and their capacity to reflect and influence cultural and individual experience.

Summary of “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin

Introduction and Conceptual Framework

  • Metaphoric Nature of Spatial Form: Rabkin critiques the use of “spatial form” as a metaphor to describe narrative structures, emphasizing the temporal (diachronic) nature of plot, which unfolds over time in the reader’s mind (Rabkin, 1977, p. 253).
  • Balance Between Synchronic and Diachronic: All narratives engage readers both temporally (as sequences of events) and structurally (as overarching frameworks), challenging overly spatial interpretations (p. 254).
  • Influence of Russian Formalism: Rabkin builds on Shklovsky’s idea of defamiliarization, where familiar elements are rendered unfamiliar to heighten readers’ engagement with a narrative (p. 255).

Plot vs. Story

  • Distinction Between Plot and Story: Drawing on Shklovsky, Rabkin defines “story” as the chronological sequence of events and “plot” as the rearranged and defamiliarized presentation of these events (p. 256).
  • Defamiliarization Through Techniques: Techniques like reordering events (e.g., Daphnis and Chloe) or alternating perspectives compel readers to perceive familiar structures in new ways (p. 257).

Analyzing Narrative Techniques

  • Example of Moral Tales: The Eskimo folktale “How Crane Got His Blue Eyes” illustrates how repetition and defamiliarization enhance moral interpretation, emphasizing the interplay of point of view and plot (p. 258).
  • Structural Consistency in Folktales: Using Propp’s analysis, Rabkin notes the fixed sequence of narrative functions in folktales, underscoring the tension between familiar (linear) structures and defamiliarized plots (p. 259).

Revisiting Romance and Classical Texts

  • Romantic Plots and Seasons: Rabkin explores seasonal metaphors in narratives like Daphnis and Chloe, demonstrating how synchronic representations often obscure the diachronic nature of textual progression (p. 262).
  • Gottfried’s Tristan: The interplay of synchronic hypotheses and diachronic progression highlights the narrative inversion from romance to tragedy, enhancing the audience’s emotional experience (p. 263).

Twentieth-Century Innovations

  • Fragmentation as a Narrative Device: Modernist texts like The Waste Land and The Sound and the Fury employ fragmentation to create synchronic moments that challenge the reader’s temporal perception (p. 267).
  • Parataxis in Hemingway: Hemingway’s use of antecedentless pronouns in A Farewell to Arms forces readers to actively reconstruct coherence, blending synchronic values with diachronic storytelling (p. 268).

Case Studies in Narrative Structure

  • William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury: The novel’s paratactic structure juxtaposes fragmented narratives, creating synchronic unity across multiple points of view while maintaining diachronic progression (p. 269).
  • Absalom, Absalom!: The concentric narrative layers simulate spatial form but ultimately reflect a temporal dialectic, with the plot moving through moral discovery and consequences (p. 270).

Conclusion

  • Spatial Form as a Metaphor: Rabkin concludes that “spatial form” remains a useful metaphor for exploring narrative techniques but cautions against literalizing it. Modernist experimentation with parataxis and fragmentation revitalizes literary forms and addresses the incoherence of contemporary experiences (p. 270).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin
Term/ConceptDefinitionExplanation in Context
Spatial FormA metaphor describing how narratives are perceived structurally rather than sequentially.Often used to analyze modernist narratives, it emphasizes synchronic (static) aspects but may obscure their temporal (diachronic) progression.
DiachronicThe temporal, sequential aspect of narrative that unfolds events over time.Rabkin argues that plot is inherently diachronic, as it is realized through the progression of time in the reader’s mind (p. 253).
SynchronicThe structural, static representation of a narrative as a whole.Essential for understanding the overarching framework or “shape” of a story, such as recurring patterns or thematic structures (p. 254).
DefamiliarizationA technique that renders familiar elements unfamiliar to heighten perception.Introduced by Shklovsky, it is key to how plot rearranges and reinterprets the linear sequence of story events (p. 255).
PlotThe reordering of story events to create defamiliarization or evoke specific effects.Rabkin distinguishes plot as the artistic manipulation of the “story,” making narratives more engaging (p. 256).
StoryThe chronological and causal sequence of events underlying a narrative.Seen as the foundation upon which plots are built; used as the baseline for comparison with defamiliarized plots (p. 256).
ParataxisA narrative or rhetorical strategy of juxtaposing elements without explicitly indicating their connections.Used in modernist works to create fragmentation and force readers to construct coherence, as in Faulkner and Hemingway (p. 267).
HypotaxisA rhetorical strategy that explicitly connects elements through causal or logical relationships.Contrasts with parataxis, hypotaxis is more characteristic of traditional storytelling, where causal links are overtly explained (p. 269).
FragmentationThe breaking up of narrative coherence into discrete parts to challenge conventional linearity.Common in modernist literature, it emphasizes disjunctions and synchronic focus over diachronic continuity (p. 267).
Narrative TechniquesMethods used by authors to manipulate time, structure, and perception in storytelling.Includes strategies like alternating perspectives, embedding stories, and shifting narrative modes (p. 257).
Point of ViewThe perspective through which a story is narrated or focalized.Determines how events are perceived and influences the plot’s synchronic and diachronic balance (p. 258).
Synchronic HypothesesThe reader’s ongoing attempt to construct a structural understanding of the narrative as it unfolds.Readers create synchronic interpretations during the diachronic process of reading (p. 259).
Tendency to SpatializeThe narrative inclination to emphasize structural or spatial coherence over temporal progression.Found in modernist literature, this tendency highlights synchronic structures while potentially reducing focus on diachronic flow (p. 270).
Architectonic NovelA term used by Sharon Spencer to describe narratives with a strong spatial or structural focus.Rabkin critiques this as overly reductive, ignoring the temporal-diachronic aspects of narratives like The Tin Drum (p. 253).
Eros in RomanceThe diachronic progression of romantic narratives from attraction to union or resolution.Exemplifies a familiar plot structure in traditional romances, used as a baseline to explore defamiliarization (p. 256).
Contribution of “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Advancement of Russian Formalism

  • Defamiliarization as Central to Plot Construction: Rabkin expands Shklovsky’s concept of defamiliarization, demonstrating how narrative plots transform familiar story sequences into compelling structures (Rabkin, 1977, p. 255).
  • Plot vs. Story Distinction: By emphasizing plot as a reordering of story elements, Rabkin validates Formalist methodologies for analyzing the aesthetic and structural innovations in narratives (p. 256).

2. Structuralism and Narratology

  • Synchronic and Diachronic Interaction: Rabkin bridges Structuralist focus on synchronic structures with the diachronic unfolding of narratives, advocating for an integrated approach to analyzing texts (p. 254).
  • Propp’s Morphology Extension: Rabkin applies Vladimir Propp’s structural analysis of folktales to modern narratives, revealing how fixed narrative functions can be manipulated through defamiliarization (p. 259).

3. Modernist Literary Criticism

  • Fragmentation as a Spatializing Technique: Rabkin critiques the fragmented forms in modernist texts, like The Waste Land and Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, showing how they spatialize narratives to reflect cultural disjunctions (p. 267).
  • Parataxis in Hemingway and Faulkner: Rabkin highlights how modernist writers use paratactic structures to force readers into active participation, constructing coherence from fragmented narratives (p. 268).

4. Reader-Response Theory

  • Synchronic Hypotheses During Reading: Rabkin discusses how readers form synchronic (structural) hypotheses while engaging diachronically with the text, emphasizing the active role of readers in meaning-making (p. 259).
  • Point of View as a Reader’s Guide: The manipulation of narrative perspective shapes the reader’s focus, balancing their synchronic and diachronic engagement (p. 258).

5. Genre Theory and Romance

  • Redefinition of Romantic Narratives: Rabkin reinterprets traditional romance plots (e.g., seasonal cycles) to reveal their structural tendencies and their evolution in modernist works (p. 263).
  • Eros and Narrative Structure: By analyzing the diachronic progression of romance plots, Rabkin provides insights into how such narratives balance synchronic and diachronic elements (p. 256).

6. Contributions to Postmodernism

  • Critique of Spatial Form Metaphor: Rabkin’s argument against the over-literal use of “spatial form” aligns with postmodern skepticism about fixed interpretations and stable structures in texts (p. 270).
  • Narrative Fragmentation as Cultural Reflection: He connects the fragmentation of modernist and postmodernist narratives to the broader cultural fragmentation of the 20th century (p. 267).

7. Comparative Literary Analysis

  • Interplay of Historical and Modern Texts: Rabkin demonstrates the continuity and transformation of narrative techniques, from folktales to modernist experiments, enriching comparative approaches in literary studies (p. 263).

8. Innovations in Stylistics

  • Language and Temporal Rhythms: Rabkin highlights how narrative styles manipulate temporal rhythms (e.g., description vs. narration) to balance synchronic and diachronic experiences in texts (p. 255).
  • Attenuation and Focus: By slowing or interrupting narratives, authors force readers to engage with specific details, defamiliarizing the familiar and shaping narrative attention (p. 266).
Examples of Critiques Through “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin
Literary WorkCritique Through Spatial Form and PlotKey References from the Essay
Laurence Sterne’s Tristram ShandySterne’s narrative interrupts events (e.g., Uncle Toby’s pipe scene) and delays progression through extensive digressions, creating a diachronic plot that forces synchronic focus on stylistic elements.Rabkin emphasizes how Sterne’s stylistic inversions and narrative delays heighten the interplay of synchronic and diachronic elements (p. 265).
William Faulkner’s The Sound and the FuryFaulkner’s fragmented narrative structure, with four juxtaposed perspectives, employs parataxis to create synchronic coherence across a diachronic progression of disjointed family histories.Rabkin notes the paratactic arrangement of Benjy, Quentin, Jason, and Dilsey’s sections as forcing readers to construct a unified interpretation (p. 269).
Hemingway’s A Farewell to ArmsHemingway uses antecedentless pronouns and indirect descriptions to defamiliarize narrative elements, making readers reconstruct coherence and adopt the narrator’s perspective.Rabkin highlights Hemingway’s stylistic approach to enforce synchronic hypotheses and align readers with the protagonist’s viewpoint (p. 268).
T. S. Eliot’s The Waste LandEliot’s fragmented structure reflects the tendency to spatialize by disrupting temporal continuity, mirroring the cultural fragmentation of the 20th century while creating synchronic resonances among disparate elements.Rabkin critiques how Eliot’s fragmentation embodies spatializing techniques that challenge conventional narrative progression (p. 267).
Criticism Against “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin

1. Overemphasis on Formalist Approaches

  • Rabkin relies heavily on Russian Formalism, particularly Shklovsky’s defamiliarization, which some critics argue limits his scope to structural mechanics rather than exploring deeper cultural or ideological contexts.
  • The essay neglects alternative critical frameworks, such as Marxist or feminist readings, which could provide richer insights into the narratives discussed.

2. Ambiguity in Synchronic and Diachronic Balance

  • Critics may find Rabkin’s integration of synchronic and diachronic perspectives unclear or inconsistent, particularly when defining how these modes interact dynamically in all narratives.
  • The balance he proposes between synchronic and diachronic elements can appear forced, as not all narratives necessarily engage both in equal measure.

3. Simplification of Spatial Form Metaphor

  • The critique of the spatial form metaphor as overly literal is valid, but Rabkin’s alternative—emphasizing the metaphor’s utility—is not groundbreaking and risks oversimplifying the modernist experimentation it seeks to address.
  • By focusing on its limitations, Rabkin may undervalue the significance of spatial form as a lens for understanding experimental narratives.

4. Limited Engagement with Reader-Response Theory

  • While Rabkin acknowledges the reader’s active role in forming synchronic hypotheses, his analysis does not fully explore the implications of this for reader-response theory, such as varying interpretations based on individual reader contexts.
  • The essay could benefit from a deeper examination of how reader agency influences the construction of plot and meaning.

5. Neglect of Non-Modernist Texts

  • The examples Rabkin uses, such as The Waste Land and The Sound and the Fury, focus heavily on modernist texts, limiting the applicability of his argument to other narrative traditions or genres.
  • His approach may marginalize pre-modernist or postmodernist texts where spatial form might function differently.

6. Tendency Toward Prescriptive Analysis

  • Rabkin often generalizes how narratives operate, which could be seen as prescriptive rather than descriptive, limiting the flexibility of his theoretical framework for diverse literary works.
  • The insistence that all narratives inherently balance synchronic and diachronic elements risks oversimplifying more complex or unconventional texts.

7. Insufficient Address of Cultural and Historical Contexts

  • The essay emphasizes narrative structure and style but largely overlooks how cultural and historical contexts shape and are reflected in the use of spatial or diachronic forms.
  • This omission makes Rabkin’s analysis less applicable to interdisciplinary studies that connect literature to broader social phenomena.
Representative Quotations from “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“To speak of the ‘spatial form’ of a plot is to speak metaphorically.”Rabkin clarifies that “spatial form” is not literal but a metaphor to describe the interplay of synchronic and diachronic elements in narrative. It highlights how a plot unfolds both in sequence (diachronically) and as a whole (synchronously).
“All reading of narrative is both diachronic and synchronic.”This emphasizes Rabkin’s core argument: narratives engage readers temporally (over time) while also encouraging them to synthesize and grasp the story as a unified whole at any moment.
“Plot is defamiliarized ‘story.'”Drawing from Shklovsky, Rabkin explains that plot reorders and reshapes the linear sequence of a story’s events, creating a fresh perspective for the reader.
“Spatial form may be thought of as a tendency, but in ordinary language it is never achieved.”Rabkin argues that while narratives exhibit spatial tendencies, complete spatialization is unattainable because narratives inherently unfold over time.
“Narrative not only defamiliarizes what it reports but guides the reader’s consciousness.”This highlights the dual role of narrative: making familiar elements fresh through defamiliarization while directing the reader’s experience and interpretation through stylistic and structural choices.
“Synchronic phenomena can always be metaphorically represented by spatial constructs.”Rabkin discusses how the structural features of narratives can be metaphorically visualized as spatial constructs, aiding in understanding their synchronic (static, whole-picture) elements.
“Fragmentation is an analogue for the felt fragmentation of twentieth-century culture.”This links narrative fragmentation to the cultural context of modernity, suggesting that the broken structures in literature reflect the fragmented experience of the contemporary world.
“Defamiliarizing techniques allow us to construct synchronic hypotheses during the diachronic progress of reading.”Rabkin explains how literary techniques challenge readers to build static (synchronic) understandings of a story even as it unfolds temporally (diachronically).
“Plot is a term which reflects a reader’s focus of attention, not some objectively definable series of isolatable events.”Rabkin shifts focus from plot as an objective sequence of events to its experiential quality, shaped by the reader’s perspective and engagement.
“The metaphor of ‘spatial form’ can help provide insights into technical problems throughout literary history.”Rabkin concludes that the concept of spatial form is a powerful analytical tool for understanding the evolution of narrative techniques across time and genres.

Suggested Readings: “Spatial Form and Plot” by Eric S. Rabkin

  1. Rabkin, Eric S. “Spatial Form and Plot.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 4, no. 2, 1977, pp. 253–70. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342962. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  2. Mitchell, W. J. T. “Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 6, no. 3, 1980, pp. 539–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343108. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  3. Spencer, Michael. “Spatial Form and Postmodernism.” Poetics Today, vol. 5, no. 1, 1984, pp. 182–95. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772437. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.
  4. Kerr, R. A. “Patterns of Place and Visual-Spatial Imagery in García Márquez’s Del Amor y Otros Demonios.” Hispania, vol. 79, no. 4, 1996, pp. 772–80. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/345324. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.

“Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio: Summary and Critique

“Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio first appeared in the Autumn 1988 issue of Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature (Volume 7, No. 2, pp. 261-282), published by the University of Tulsa.

"Theory and Space, Space and Woman" by Ruth Salvaggio: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio

“Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio first appeared in the Autumn 1988 issue of Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature (Volume 7, No. 2, pp. 261-282), published by the University of Tulsa. Salvaggio’s essay explores the intersection of feminist theory and spatial conceptualization, arguing that women writers and theorists have historically redefined the notion of space through their unique experiences and articulations. Drawing on figures like Virginia Woolf, Julia Kristeva, and Elaine Showalter, Salvaggio examines how feminist theory challenges traditional metaphysical and structuralist frameworks, which often codify space as masculine. Instead, feminist theorists create “feminine spaces” that are fluid, open, and generative, reshaping the intellectual and aesthetic contours of theory itself. The essay is significant for its critical analysis of how space and gender intersect in the production of knowledge, offering a transformative perspective on the roles of women in literary theory and beyond. Salvaggio’s work remains a cornerstone in feminist literary studies, emphasizing the importance of reclaiming and reimagining space as a domain of both representation and resistance for women.

Summary of “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio
  • Historical Silence of Women in Theory: Salvaggio explores the historical absence of women in the realm of literary theory, attributing this silence not only to exclusion by male-dominated traditions but also to women’s unique conceptualization of space (Salvaggio, 1988, p. 261). Unlike male theorists, whose frameworks often emphasize enclosed and totalized structures, women envision space as fluid and transformative.
  • Feminist Theory and Spatial Concepts: Feminist theory emerges as a distinct category, contrasting traditional and postmodern theories with its grounding in women’s lived spatial experiences. Women’s spatial theorizing does not reshape masculine spaces but brings feminine spaces into discourse, challenging traditional metaphysical and postmodern constructs (p. 262).
  • Masculine and Feminine Spatial Boundaries in Theory: Salvaggio highlights the “masculine” tendencies of traditional theories, with their focus on bounded, static forms such as the formalist “well-wrought urn.” Feminist theories, in contrast, emphasize dispersive and open-ended spaces, aligning with what Alice Jardine describes as “coded as feminine” (p. 263).
  • Women’s Transformative Spatial Engagements: Women’s spatial engagement in theory blurs boundaries and redefines theoretical landscapes. For example, theorists like Julia Kristeva explore “Women’s Space” and “Women’s Time,” integrating feminine subjectivity and challenging patriarchal symbolic orders (p. 271).
  • Margins and Feminist Revisions of Space: Salvaggio adopts Teresa de Lauretis’s concept of “space-off,” representing women’s marginal, invisible positions in traditional discourse. Women reclaim these marginal spaces, transforming them into sites of resistance and reconstruction. These efforts create spaces for feminist perspectives that embrace multiplicity and reject hegemonic constraints (p. 273).
  • Embodied Spaces and Feminist Writing: The essay discusses the body as a critical site for feminist theorizing, referring to works such as Hélène Cixous’s écriture féminine. Writing through the body dissolves rigid theoretical boundaries, reflecting the fluid, generative nature of feminine spaces (p. 275).
  • Fluidity and the Feminine Abyss: Salvaggio employs metaphors of water and fluidity to describe women’s theorizing as transformative and boundary-defying. Drawing from Adrienne Rich and Luce Irigaray, she highlights the dissolution of oppositional binaries and hierarchical structures in feminist spaces (p. 276).
  • Challenges to Traditional Spatial Constructs: Feminist theory, as discussed by Salvaggio, redefines spatial constructs by rejecting fixed, patriarchal metaphors and embracing dynamic, liquid spaces. This transformation extends beyond literary theory to influence broader cultural and philosophical discourses (p. 278).
  • Intersections of Theory, Writing, and Identity: The work concludes by emphasizing the revolutionary potential of feminist theory to reshape traditional disciplines. By inhabiting and transforming theoretical spaces, women create new avenues for discourse, resisting oppressive symbolic orders and fostering inclusivity (p. 281).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio
  • Women’s Poetics and Silence in Theory:
    • Explores the historical “silence” of women in literary theory, attributing it to spatial and metaphysical constructs dominated by male theorists like Aristotle and his intellectual descendants.
    • Reference: “The very notion of space has been foregrounded by a long tradition of men who deal in both the spatial concept of metaphysics and, more recently, in its spatio-temporal deconstruction” (p. 261).
  • Feminist Theory as Spatial Reimagination:
    • Feminist theory reconfigures traditional notions of space by foregrounding women’s lived experiences and the spaces they occupy, rather than adapting to pre-existing “masculine” spaces.
    • Reference: “Instead of shaping masculine space into something feminine, these women bring feminine space to life by writing from, through, and about the spaces women themselves have occupied” (p. 262).
  • Spatial Criticism and Masculine Constructs:
    • Discusses “space critics,” such as Joseph Frank, J. Hillis Miller, and Paul de Man, who conceptualized literary theory within spatial dimensions like “closure,” “gaps,” and “symbolic unities.”
    • Reference: “Their attempt to chart the spatial dimensions of literature…sought to measure off and stake out the territory that literary discourse might legitimately be said to occupy” (p. 263).
  • Structural and Poststructural Space:
    • Structuralism frames space as systematic and bounded (e.g., Roman Jakobson’s linguistic frameworks), while poststructuralism, through theorists like Derrida, dismantles such boundaries by emphasizing “spacing” and “difference.”
    • Reference: “Poststructuralist theory…regards [space] in the opposite way as the temporal gaps, the spaces between, that make cohesion impossible” (p. 267).
  • “Space-off” and Marginality:
    • Borrowing from Teresa de Lauretis’s film theory, the “space-off” refers to women’s marginal positions within discourse and their ability to reconstruct from this vantage.
    • Reference: “De Lauretis explains women’s marginality in terms of ‘the space not visible in the frame but inferable from what the frame makes visible’” (p. 273).
  • Ecriture Féminine (Writing the Body):
    • Influenced by Hélène Cixous, feminist writing emphasizes the transformative potential of writing through the female body, disrupting rigid, patriarchal spatial frameworks.
    • Reference: “Woman must write her body…must burst partitions, classes, and rhetorics, orders and codes” (p. 275).
  • Fluid Space and Feminist Transformations:
    • Describes feminine spaces as fluid, generative, and boundary-defying, in contrast to static masculine spaces. Feminist theorists like Luce Irigaray emphasize the dissolution of fixed spatial constructs.
    • Reference: “Perhaps woman’s space is water…Woolf’s ‘uncharted sea’ or that Derrida leaps across, but in which Cixous prefers to swim” (p. 276).
  • Maternal and Generative Spaces:
    • Drawing from Adrienne Rich and Julia Kristeva, Salvaggio highlights maternal spaces as central to feminist theory, emphasizing fluidity, transformation, and resistance to static metaphors.
    • Reference: “The fluidity of both woman’s body and writing seems inseparable from the fluid dimension of her theorizing” (p. 276).
  • Gynesis and Feminine Spatial Coding:
    • Alice Jardine’s concept of “gynesis” describes the feminization of theoretical spaces by male postmodern theorists, though Salvaggio critiques its reliance on male-coded depictions of femininity.
    • Reference: “Jardine uses the term ‘gynesis’ to describe this ‘woman-effect,’…freely coded as feminine” (p. 268).
  • Temporal and Spatial Juxtaposition in Feminist Theory:
    • Julia Kristeva’s dual concepts of “Women’s Time” (historical participation) and “Women’s Space” (symbolic, nonlinear configurations) encapsulate feminism’s multifaceted engagement with space.
    • Reference: “Kristeva also delineates these two concepts of space, using them to explore potential transformative effects in both” (p. 271).
Contribution of “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio to Literary Theory/Theories
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationReference
Women’s Silence in TheoryHistorical lack of women’s voices in literary theory due to male-dominated metaphysical and spatial constructs.“The very notion of space has been foregrounded by a long tradition of men…” (p. 261).
Feminist Theory as Spatial ReimaginationRedefines traditional spatial boundaries by integrating women’s experiences and perspectives.“These women bring feminine space to life by writing from, through, and about…” (p. 262).
Spatial Criticism (Masculine Constructs)Male theorists like Frank, Miller, and de Man mapped literary theory onto spatial dimensions like gaps and unity.“Their attempt to chart the spatial dimensions of literature…” (p. 263).
Structural SpaceConceptualizes space as systematic, bounded, and hierarchical (e.g., linguistic structures).“Structural critics gave us the key to a much larger…room of mental design” (p. 265).
Poststructural SpacingEmphasizes temporal gaps and differences that challenge cohesive, bounded spatial constructs.“Regarded…as the temporal gaps, the spaces between, that make cohesion impossible” (p. 267).
“Space-off” and MarginalityWomen’s position in discourse as marginalized, allowing them to reconstruct dominant narratives.“De Lauretis explains women’s marginality in terms of…‘the space not visible in the frame’” (p. 273).
Ecriture Féminine (Writing the Body)Writing through the female body to disrupt patriarchal spatial orders and create transformative discourse.“Woman must write her body…must burst partitions, classes, and rhetorics…” (p. 275).
Fluid SpaceFeminine spaces depicted as fluid and generative, in contrast to rigid masculine spatial constructs.“Perhaps woman’s space is water…uncharted sea…” (p. 276).
Maternal and Generative SpacesDraws from maternal symbolism to highlight transformation and fluidity in feminist theory.“The fluidity of both woman’s body and writing…inseparable from theorizing” (p. 276).
GynesisFeminization of theoretical spaces by male postmodern theorists, emphasizing dispersive and non-cohesive spaces.“Jardine uses the term ‘gynesis’ to describe this ‘woman-effect’…” (p. 268).
Temporal and Spatial JuxtapositionKristeva’s concepts of “Women’s Time” (historical engagement) and “Women’s Space” (nonlinear, symbolic space).“Kristeva also delineates these two concepts of space…” (p. 271).
Examples of Critiques Through “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio
Literary WorkCritique Through “Theory and Space, Space and Woman”Key Theoretical Concepts Applied
Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s OwnHighlights Woolf’s argument for a woman’s physical and metaphorical space for creative work, aligning with Salvaggio’s idea of women reimagining space in theory.Women’s Space: Woolf’s “room” mirrors Kristeva’s “Women’s Time” and “Women’s Space” as transformative and resistant to linear structures.
T. S. Eliot’s The Waste LandExamines Eliot’s fragmented narrative as a masculine spatial form, where women’s experiences are often marginalized or relegated to “space-off” positions.Masculine Spatial Criticism: The poem’s reliance on structured fragmentation aligns with the “bounded” spaces critiqued by Salvaggio.
Adrienne Rich’s Diving into the WreckReflects the transformative power of feminine space and fluidity, as Rich dives into the “abyss” to challenge spatial and gender boundaries.Fluid Space and Ecriture Féminine: Salvaggio’s concepts of liquid space and transformative writing echo Rich’s metaphorical journey.
Ezra Pound’s CantosCritiques Pound’s use of mythic and totalizing spatial constructs as reflective of masculine control, contrasting it with women’s dispersive, lived spaces.Structural Space: The Cantos’ emphasis on unified myth is analyzed as a masculine tendency to define space systematically.
Criticism Against “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio
  • Overgeneralization of Gendered Space: Critics might argue that Salvaggio overly dichotomizes “masculine” and “feminine” spaces, reducing complex theoretical developments into binary categories.
  • Limited Intersectionality: The essay’s primary focus on gender may overlook the ways race, class, and sexuality intersect with spatial theories, potentially narrowing its applicability across diverse feminist perspectives.
  • Abstract Theoretical Constructs: Salvaggio’s emphasis on metaphysical and deconstructed spatial concepts might be criticized as inaccessible or overly theoretical, limiting practical engagement or application.
  • Reliance on Western Feminist Theories: The essay’s focus on theorists like Kristeva, Cixous, and Rich could be seen as privileging Western feminist discourses, neglecting contributions from non-Western or decolonial feminist frameworks.
  • Insufficient Practical Examples: While it extensively critiques theoretical spatial constructs, the essay might be criticized for providing insufficient examples of how these concepts directly affect material realities for women.
  • Critique of Postmodern Ambiguity: The essay’s embrace of postmodern “fluidity” and resistance to boundaries could be critiqued as reinforcing ambiguity, making it challenging to propose concrete feminist strategies.
  • Overemphasis on Literary Theory: Some might critique its heavy reliance on literary criticism, suggesting that it underexplores other domains where spatial theories might apply, such as political geography or architecture.
  • Exclusion of Male Feminist Contributions: By focusing predominantly on male theorists’ limitations in spatial theory, the essay might overlook contributions by male feminists who align with feminist spatial critiques.
  • Neglect of Historical Materialism: Critics rooted in materialist feminism might argue that Salvaggio’s focus on theoretical space neglects the economic and social systems that materially structure women’s spaces.
Representative Quotations from “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“If we can at least understand the nature of their ‘abandonment,’ he suggests, we might begin to give the daughter theorist ‘a space of her own.’” (p. 262)Salvaggio references Lipking’s idea of “abandonment” to highlight how the historical silencing of women in theory necessitates the creation of their own theoretical space. This is a call for reclaiming and redefining intellectual spaces for women.
“The spatial configurations fundamental to the production of theory are not at all the kinds of spaces occupied and described by women.” (p. 264)Salvaggio critiques traditional theoretical spaces as inherently masculine. She underscores that women’s experiences require different spatial frameworks, challenging the norms of how theory is constructed.
“Instead of shaping masculine space into something feminine, these women bring feminine space to life by writing from, through, and about the spaces women themselves have occupied.” (p. 264)Salvaggio celebrates feminist theorists like Kristeva and Woolf, who create new spaces rooted in women’s lived experiences rather than merely adapting existing patriarchal frameworks.
“Postmodern theory is discontinuous rather than unified; its spatial contours are feminine rather than masculine.” (p. 267)Postmodernism’s rejection of totalizing narratives aligns with feminist critiques. Salvaggio observes how the fragmented, fluid nature of postmodern theory mirrors women’s diverse and often marginalized experiences.
“Woman’s body, as it becomes a writing subject, necessarily moves beyond the spatial enclaves of metaphysics.” (p. 275)This quote asserts that when women write about their bodies, they challenge the rigid boundaries of traditional metaphysical constructs, introducing new ways of understanding identity and space.
“The interval, the distance, the gap, the space, the difference—these are all terms that echo throughout poststructuralist theory.” (p. 267)Salvaggio explores how poststructuralist theory conceptualizes space not as fixed but as a dynamic interplay of gaps and intervals, aligning with feminist efforts to rethink traditional binaries and hierarchies.
“It is through this Other space, I believe, that women are breaking with both traditional and postmodern concepts of space.” (p. 262)Salvaggio introduces the notion of “Other space” as a feminist alternative to both traditional and postmodern spatial theories, allowing for the inclusion of women’s unique perspectives and experiences.
“Woman must write her body, must make up the unimpeded tongue that bursts partitions, classes and rhetorics, orders and codes.” (p. 275)Quoting Hélène Cixous, Salvaggio emphasizes the transformative potential of women writing their bodies to disrupt and reshape dominant discourses.
“The sea is another story.” (p. 277)Using Adrienne Rich’s metaphor, Salvaggio reflects on the fluid and transformative potential of feminist theory, which navigates uncharted territories, challenging rigid theoretical boundaries.
“The feminine configurations shaped by these men signal an important break with unified systems of theory.” (p. 267)Salvaggio acknowledges the contribution of male theorists like Barthes and Derrida in introducing feminine elements to theoretical discourse but critiques their limited engagement with women’s authentic experiences.
Suggested Readings: “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio
  1. Salvaggio, Ruth. “Theory and Space, Space and Woman.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, vol. 7, no. 2, 1988, pp. 261–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/463682. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
  2. Gwin, Minrose. “Space Travel: The Connective Politics of Feminist Reading.” Signs, vol. 21, no. 4, 1996, pp. 870–905. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175027. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
  3. Grosz, Elizabeth. “Deleuze, Theory, And Space.” Log, no. 1, 2003, pp. 77–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41764951. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.

“Diasporas” by James Clifford: Summary and Critique

“Diasporas” by James Clifford first appeared in Cultural Anthropology in August 1994 (Vol. 9, No. 3), as part of the thematic issue Further Inflections: Toward Ethnographies of the Future.

"Diasporas" by James Clifford: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Diasporas” by James Clifford

“Diasporas” by James Clifford first appeared in Cultural Anthropology in August 1994 (Vol. 9, No. 3), as part of the thematic issue Further Inflections: Toward Ethnographies of the Future. This seminal work explores the complexities of diaspora as a concept, challenging the rigid binaries of home and away, and questioning essentialist notions of identity tied to nationhood and territory. Clifford highlights the fluid, multifaceted experiences of diasporic communities, emphasizing hybrid cultural formations, the ongoing negotiation of identities, and the political dimensions of diasporic affiliations. The essay’s importance in literature and literary theory lies in its influence on postcolonial studies and cultural criticism, providing a framework for understanding transnational cultural flows and the diverse ways communities imagine and narrate their histories and futures in a globalized world.

Summary of “Diasporas” by James Clifford

The Political and Intellectual Stakes of Diaspora

  • Relevance and Definitions: Clifford explores the complex meanings and stakes of diaspora in the contemporary world. He highlights how the term captures the dual experience of displacement and creating “homes away from home” (Clifford, 1994, p. 302).
  • Ambiguity of Diaspora: Diaspora resists reduction to mere byproducts of nation-states or global capitalism. Instead, it provides resources for postcolonial critique and alternative community practices (Clifford, 1994, p. 303).

Challenges of Definition and Scope

  • A Traveling Term: Diaspora shares a semantic field with terms like “immigrant,” “exile,” and “transnational.” Its boundaries often overlap but require specificity to retain meaning (Clifford, 1994, p. 304).
  • Comparative Analysis: William Safran’s six-point definition of diaspora emphasizes dispersal, memory of the homeland, alienation, and aspirations for return, but Clifford critiques its rigidity. Diaspora evolves historically and circumstantially (Safran, 1991, p. 83–84; Clifford, 1994, p. 305).

Diaspora and Border Paradigms

  • Connections to Borders: Diaspora and border experiences often intersect but remain distinct. Borders imply geopolitical lines, while diasporas reflect cultural and temporal distances (Clifford, 1994, p. 304).
  • Technological Impacts: Modern technologies (e.g., air travel and telecommunications) enable continuous connections between dispersed populations and homelands, blurring traditional boundaries (Clifford, 1994, p. 306).

Diaspora vs. National and Indigenous Identities

  • Diaspora as Resistance: Diasporic communities challenge national assimilationist ideologies. They maintain transnational allegiances that resist complete integration (Clifford, 1994, p. 307).
  • Intersection with Indigenous Claims: Diasporas engage with indigenous identities but differ in their emphasis on displacement versus rootedness. Both challenge nation-states but from different perspectives (Clifford, 1994, p. 309).

Diaspora Consciousness

  • Negative and Positive Dimensions: Diaspora consciousness emerges from exclusion and discrimination but also thrives through cultural adaptations and transnational connections (Clifford, 1994, p. 311).
  • Utopian Potential: Despite suffering, diasporic communities generate visions of renewal and solidarity, enabling new forms of global belonging (Clifford, 1994, p. 312).

Case Studies and Applications

  • Black Atlantic: Paul Gilroy’s work on the Black Atlantic exemplifies a modern diasporic framework. It highlights transnational connections among African, Caribbean, and British communities, focusing on shared histories of displacement and creativity (Gilroy, 1993a, p. 266; Clifford, 1994, p. 316).
  • Jewish Diasporism: Anti-Zionist Jewish ideologies critique the notion of return as a negation of diaspora, emphasizing coexistence and transnational identities instead (Boyarin & Boyarin, 1993, p. 721; Clifford, 1994, p. 322).

Gendered Experiences in Diaspora

  • Women’s Roles: Women in diaspora navigate patriarchal structures while gaining new agency in transnational contexts. Their experiences reveal unique intersections of gender and displacement (Clifford, 1994, p. 314).
  • Negotiating Traditions: Diasporic women critically reinterpret cultural traditions to sustain identities and communities in new contexts (Gupta, 1988, p. 27–29; Clifford, 1994, p. 315).

Cultural Hybridity and Future Directions

  • Hybridity and Multiplicity: Diasporic cultures are inherently hybrid, resisting essentialist definitions and emphasizing fluid identities (Clifford, 1994, p. 320).
  • Imagining Alternatives: Diasporas inspire “post-national” futures by reclaiming histories of transregional connections and coexistence, providing countermodels to dominant global and nationalist paradigms (Clifford, 1994, p. 328).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Diasporas” by James Clifford
Term/ConceptExplanationSignificance/Context
DiasporaA dispersed population maintaining ties with their homeland, characterized by displacement, memory, and transnational connections.Challenges nation-state models; allows for hybrid identities and resistance to assimilationist ideologies.
Home and DisplacementThe dual experience of creating a “home away from home” while maintaining a sense of alienation from host societies.Reflects the complexity of diasporic belonging and the tension between roots and routes.
Nation-State vs. DiasporaDiaspora resists the totalizing identity of the nation-state by creating alternative identities rooted in transnational linkages.Highlights the limits of assimilationist and nationalist paradigms in understanding identity.
Border and BorderlandsGeopolitical zones of interaction and subversion, distinct from but often overlapping with diasporic experiences.Demonstrates shared challenges in identity formation across diasporas and border regions.
Homeland MythologyThe narrative of a return to or connection with an ancestral homeland, often used to unify diasporic identities.Questions the centrality of physical return in defining diaspora; emphasizes symbolic connections.
HybridityThe blending of multiple cultural identities and traditions, resulting in new, dynamic cultural forms.Essential to the survival and evolution of diasporic communities; challenges purity in cultural identity.
MultilocalityLiving in and maintaining connections across multiple locations, forming transnational networks.Illustrates the interconnectedness of diasporic communities in a globalized world.
Diaspora ConsciousnessAwareness of a shared history of displacement and survival, combined with a longing for connection and cultural renewal.A positive and adaptive form of identity that allows for survival and solidarity despite marginalization.
Gendered DiasporaThe specific ways in which gender influences experiences and roles within diasporic communities.Highlights the importance of considering gender dynamics in diaspora studies.
AmbivalenceThe simultaneous experiences of belonging and alienation, hope and loss within diasporic communities.A key feature that defines the complexity of diasporic identity and its political and cultural struggles.
Roots and RoutesThe tension between maintaining cultural roots and navigating new pathways in host societies.Represents the duality of diasporic existence and the negotiation of identity in displacement.
Polythetic DefinitionsDefinitions that embrace the diversity and variability of diasporic experiences without reducing them to a single model.Ensures inclusivity and flexibility in understanding the wide range of diasporic formations.
Transnational NetworksConnections between diasporic populations across different countries, maintained through communication, trade, and migration.Demonstrates the global interconnectedness of diasporas beyond national boundaries.
Utopic/Dystopic TensionThe coexistence of hopeful visions of community and the harsh realities of displacement and exclusion in diasporic narratives.Reflects the dual realities of diasporic life, from resilience to ongoing struggles against oppression.
Decentered ConnectionsDiasporas linked by lateral relationships rather than centered around a single homeland or narrative.Promotes an understanding of diaspora as a dynamic and flexible network.
Cultural SurvivalThe active preservation and adaptation of traditions within diasporic communities.Emphasizes the role of culture in maintaining community identity and resilience in the face of displacement.
Displacement and LossThe experience of forced or voluntary separation from homeland, often accompanied by a sense of alienation and marginalization.Central to the historical and emotional realities of diasporic identities.
Diasporic CosmopolitanismThe ability of diasporas to navigate and contribute to global cultural and political dialogues.Reflects the potential of diasporas to foster intercultural understanding and challenge hegemonic systems.
Diasporic Identity FormationThe process of constructing identities that integrate historical displacement and present-day realities.Challenges static notions of identity by incorporating fluid and hybrid elements.
Counter-HistoriesNarratives that challenge dominant histories and highlight the contributions and struggles of diasporic communities.Essential for reclaiming agency and voice within marginalized populations.
Contribution of “Diasporas” by James Clifford to Literary Theory/Theories
  • Reconfiguration of Identity in Literary Studies:
    • Emphasizes the fluidity of identity in diasporic contexts, challenging essentialist and nation-centric frameworks (Clifford, 1994, p. 307).
    • Highlights the tension between “roots” (cultural origins) and “routes” (transnational movement), providing a model for understanding identity in postcolonial literature.
  • Introduction of a Comparative Framework:
    • Advocates for a polythetic approach to diaspora, allowing for diverse, non-essentialist comparisons across diasporic experiences (Clifford, 1994, p. 306).
    • Encourages the inclusion of discrepant histories and multi-locale connections in comparative literary studies.
  • Diaspora as a Framework for Postcolonial Critique:
    • Aligns diasporic narratives with postcolonial critiques, addressing issues of displacement, marginalization, and cultural hybridity (Clifford, 1994, p. 319).
    • Explores how diasporic discourses critique hegemonic narratives of nation, race, and cultural purity, enriching postcolonial literary analysis.
  • Hybridization and Creolization in Literary Forms:
    • Explores hybridity and cultural mixing as central to diasporic existence, influencing studies of creolized and hybrid literary forms (Clifford, 1994, p. 304).
    • Challenges traditional binaries in cultural and literary production, enabling a deeper understanding of intercultural texts.
  • Diasporic Consciousness in Literary Themes:
    • Identifies diasporic consciousness as both a source of resilience and critique, influencing themes of belonging, loss, and survival in literature (Clifford, 1994, p. 312).
    • Proposes diasporic literature as a medium to negotiate the complexities of displacement and transnational identities.
  • Intersections with Gender Studies:
    • Recognizes the gendered nature of diasporic experiences, suggesting a focus on how literary representations of diaspora intersect with feminist critiques (Clifford, 1994, p. 314).
    • Encourages nuanced readings of gender roles in diasporic narratives.
  • Decentering of Canonical Narratives:
    • Advocates for decentered, lateral connections in diaspora studies, aligning with poststructuralist critiques of centralized narratives in literature (Clifford, 1994, p. 322).
    • Positions diasporic texts as sites of resistance to colonial and nationalist literary traditions.
  • Diaspora as a Mode of Reading:
    • Suggests that diaspora offers a mode of reading literature that foregrounds displacement, multiplicity, and transnational belonging (Clifford, 1994, p. 328).
    • Encourages readings that value disaggregated identities and contested belonging over monolithic interpretations.
  • Integration with Theories of Hybridity and Transnationalism:
    • Enriches literary theories of hybridity (e.g., Homi Bhabha) by situating hybridity within concrete diasporic experiences (Clifford, 1994, p. 317).
    • Links transnationalism with lived realities, providing a theoretical basis for examining global flows in literature.
  • Foregrounding the Utopic/Dystopic Tension:
    • Introduces the tension between utopian visions of community and the dystopian realities of exclusion, informing interpretations of resistance in diasporic texts (Clifford, 1994, p. 319).
    • Highlights the potential for diasporic literature to critique oppressive systems while imagining alternative futures.
Examples of Critiques Through “Diasporas” by James Clifford
Literary WorkCritique Through Clifford’s LensRelevant Concepts from DiasporasReferences
“Wide Sargasso Sea” by Jean RhysExplores the diasporic identity of Antoinette and her dislocation from Caribbean and English cultures. Highlights hybridity and cultural loss.Hybridity: Tensions between “roots” and “routes” (Clifford, 1994, p. 307).
Displacement: Exile and marginalization (p. 314).
Clifford, 1994, pp. 304, 319.
“Beloved” by Toni MorrisonAddresses the diasporic memory of enslavement as a collective trauma and the longing for a “home” in a disrupted identity.Diasporic Consciousness: Interplay of loss and hope (p. 312).
Historical Ruptures: Temporal breaks shaping identity (p. 318).
Clifford, 1994, pp. 318, 319.
“White Teeth” by Zadie SmithExamines the multi-generational diasporic experiences of immigrant families in Britain, reflecting hybridity and transnationalism.Transnationalism: Multi-locale connections shaping identity (p. 322).
Cultural Adaptation: Hybridity as survival (p. 328).
Clifford, 1994, pp. 307, 328.
“The God of Small Things” by Arundhati RoyAnalyzes the localized effects of transnational diasporic flows and the marginalization of “small” voices within globalized spaces.Borderlands: Overlapping diasporic and local struggles (p. 305).
Resistance: Narratives critiquing global hegemony (p. 319).
Clifford, 1994, pp. 305, 319.
Criticism Against “Diasporas” by James Clifford
  • Ambiguity in Definition of Diaspora
    Clifford’s refusal to offer a fixed definition of diaspora is critiqued for making the concept overly flexible and prone to misapplication. This undermines its analytical rigor and allows for the inclusion of loosely related phenomena.
  • Overemphasis on Hybridity and Fluidity
    Critics argue that Clifford’s focus on hybridity and lateral connections downplays the importance of rootedness and the centrality of homeland in certain diasporic experiences, particularly in historical Jewish or Palestinian diasporas.
  • Limited Engagement with Gender and Intersectionality
    The essay has been critiqued for insufficiently addressing gendered and intersectional dimensions of diasporic experiences. For instance, the unique challenges faced by women in diasporic conditions are marginalized.
  • North American Bias
    Clifford acknowledges his North American perspective, but critics contend that this bias limits the essay’s universality and applicability to non-Western contexts and localized diasporic experiences.
  • Insufficient Focus on Structural Constraints
    Some scholars criticize Clifford’s emphasis on the agency of diasporic subjects, arguing that it underrepresents the structural forces of racism, economic inequality, and geopolitical power that often dominate diasporic conditions.
  • Overgeneralization of Diasporic Identity
    By proposing a flexible and inclusive model of diaspora, Clifford risks homogenizing vastly different diasporic experiences and histories, such as those of African, Jewish, and Chinese diasporas.
  • Lack of Engagement with Economic Dimensions
    Clifford’s framework does not sufficiently account for the economic underpinnings of diaspora, such as labor migration, exploitation, and economic marginalization within global capitalism.
  • Risk of Romanticizing Diaspora
    Critics argue that Clifford’s portrayal of diaspora often romanticizes cultural hybridity and cosmopolitanism, overlooking the trauma, loss, and struggles intrinsic to many diasporic experiences.
Representative Quotations from “Diasporas” by James Clifford with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Diasporas are the exemplary communities of the transnational moment.”Highlights the centrality of diasporas in understanding global interconnectedness and cultural interactions in modern times.
“Diaspora discourse articulates, or bends together, both roots and routes to construct what Gilroy describes as alternate public spheres.”Emphasizes how diasporas balance cultural origins (“roots”) with dynamic movement and adaptability (“routes”).
“Diaspora consciousness lives loss and hope as a defining tension.”Underlines the coexistence of grief and aspiration in diasporic experiences, reflecting both disconnection and resilience.
“Diasporas cannot be reduced to epiphenomena of the nation-state or of global capitalism.”Argues that diasporas critique and transcend structural forces like nationalism and economic systems, offering new insights.
“Diasporic identities are constituted both negatively by experiences of discrimination and positively through identification with world historical cultural/political forces.”Explores the dual nature of diasporic identity, shaped by exclusion and connection to broader global narratives.
“Diaspora is different from travel in that it is not temporary.”Differentiates diaspora from mere mobility, emphasizing its permanence and cultural embeddedness.
“The empowering paradox of diaspora is that dwelling here assumes a solidarity and connection there.”Highlights the simultaneous presence of local belonging and global connectivity in diasporic communities.
“Diasporas articulate alternate public spheres, interpretive communities where critical alternatives can be expressed.”Reflects on how diasporas create spaces for alternative cultural and political expressions beyond mainstream frameworks.
“Decentered, lateral connections may be as important as those formed around a teleology of origin/return.”Stresses the significance of horizontal, networked relationships in diasporas rather than a singular focus on homeland.
“Diasporic cultural identity teaches us that cultures are not preserved by being protected from ‘mixing’ but probably can only continue to exist as a product of such mixing.”Challenges notions of cultural purity, emphasizing hybridity as essential for cultural survival and evolution.
Suggested Readings: “Diasporas” by James Clifford
  1. Clifford, James. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 3, 1994, pp. 302–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/656365. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  2. Shain, Yossi, and Aharon Barth. “Diasporas and International Relations Theory.” International Organization, vol. 57, no. 3, 2003, pp. 449–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594834. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  3. Akyeampong, Emmanuel. “Africans in the Diaspora: The Diaspora and Africa.” African Affairs, vol. 99, no. 395, 2000, pp. 183–215. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/723808. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.

“Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy: Summary and Critique

“Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy, first appeared in the journal Paragraph in 1994, examines the term “diaspora,” tracing its evolution from a concept rooted in forced displacement.

"Diaspora" by Paul Gilroy: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy

“Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy, first appeared in the journal Paragraph in 1994, examines the term “diaspora,” tracing its evolution from a concept rooted in forced displacement and collective memory to a critical lens for understanding cultural identity and transnational networks. Gilroy challenges static notions of cultural belonging, highlighting the tension between historical displacement and the institutional authority of the modern nation-state. He positions diaspora as a framework to analyze the fluid, interwoven nature of cultural exchange, memory, and power dynamics, contrasting it with rigid, nation-state-centered paradigms. Its significance in literary theory lies in its ability to decenter traditional narratives of identity, emphasizing hybridity, cultural dynamism, and the destabilization of essentialist ideologies. Gilroy’s exploration extends the term beyond its historical Jewish context, incorporating black Atlantic and post-slavery experiences, and redefines it as a generative concept for anti-nationalist and anti-essentialist critique in the modern era. This work remains influential in discussions of globalization, race, and cultural studies, challenging conventional frameworks of temporality and spatiality.

Summary of “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy

Modern Contextualization of Diaspora

  • The term “diaspora,” rooted in antiquity, gained a modern relevance in the 19th century, particularly through nationalistic and imperialist projects such as those in Palestine (Gilroy, 1994, p. 207).
  • It is conceptualized as a transnational and inter-cultural phenomenon, contrasting with the totalizing ambitions of “global” and enriching analyses of cultural and spatial dynamics (p. 208).

Defining Features of Diaspora

  • Diaspora denotes forced dispersal and reluctant scattering, shaped by push factors like slavery, pogroms, and genocide (p. 208).
  • Unlike nomadism, diaspora focuses on memory and collective identity, which often exist in tension with nation-state paradigms (p. 209).

Nation-State and Diaspora

  • The nation-state is presented as a force attempting to resolve diaspora through assimilation or return, disrupting diaspora’s unique temporality (p. 209).
  • The idea of return, central to some diaspora identities, varies in accessibility and desirability, complicating notions of belonging and reconciliation (p. 210).

Historical and Cultural Adaptations

  • Initially rooted in Jewish history, the concept of diaspora was later adapted by Black thinkers in post-slavery contexts, exemplified by Edward Wilmot Blyden’s work on Liberia and Zionism (p. 211).
  • This adaptation reflects the dynamic exchange of cultural and historical paradigms across different communities.

Diaspora as a Seed of Identity

  • Diaspora is metaphorically linked to the idea of seeds, emphasizing the tensions between uniformity and differentiation (p. 209).
  • It critiques closed kinship models, favoring a vision of cultural identity as mutable and ecologically influenced by diverse environments (p. 210).

Critique of Masculinism and Biological Reproduction

  • Stefan Helmreich critiques diaspora’s etymological ties to masculinism but acknowledges the potential for more inclusive interpretations, such as the linkage with “spore” rather than “sperm” (p. 211).
  • Diaspora counters nationalist bio-politics by emphasizing supranational kinship and resisting essentialist frameworks (p. 211).

Anti-Nationalist and Chaotic Framework

  • Diaspora opposes nationalist purity by fostering pluralistic, non-linear connections, where identity is dynamic and resistant to teleological narratives (p. 212).
  • It suggests a chaotic yet generative model of identity, marked by instability and transformation rather than fixed origins (p. 213).

Space, Memory, and Culture

  • Diaspora redefines space as a network of ex-centric connections, enabling dispersed populations to maintain cultural and social linkages (p. 213).
  • Gilroy invokes the motif of “the changing same” to capture the iterative, hybridized nature of diaspora culture, rejecting simplistic notions of unchanging identity (p. 214).

Diaspora as Dynamic Memory

  • The concept challenges static traditions, viewing diaspora as an evolving cultural process driven by embodied memory rather than inscribed heritage (p. 214).
  • It promotes an understanding of identity as fluid, adaptive, and inherently resistant to essentialist and nationalist closures (p. 214).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationSignificance/Role in DiasporaReference
DiasporaA condition of forced dispersal and reluctant scattering, characterized by cultural memory and identity.Emphasizes the dynamics of displacement, memory, and belonging beyond territorial and nationalistic frameworks.Gilroy, 1994, p. 208
Memory and CommemorationThe social processes of remembrance shaping diaspora consciousness.Focuses identity on shared historical experiences rather than a specific geographic location.Gilroy, 1994, p. 209
Nation-StatePolitical entity often seen as the endpoint for diaspora dispersal through assimilation or return.Highlights the tension between diaspora identity and the institutional authority of the nation-state.Gilroy, 1994, p. 209
ReturnThe idea of reuniting with the place of origin or sojourn.Explores the desirability and accessibility of return as central to diaspora typologies and histories.Gilroy, 1994, p. 210
(Dis)OrganicityThe ambivalence in diaspora regarding cultural uniformity versus differentiation.Critiques static cultural identities, emphasizing growth, adaptation, and hybridity.Gilroy, 1994, p. 209
Supranational KinshipA conception of community that transcends national and ethnic boundaries.Offers a critique of nationalist essentialism, emphasizing interconnectedness and anti-essentialist perspectives.Gilroy, 1994, p. 211
HybridizationThe blending and recombination of cultural forms across different environments.Central to diaspora’s capacity to disrupt fixed identities and foster cultural dynamism.Gilroy, 1994, p. 214
The Changing SameA motif describing the iterative and evolving nature of cultural identity within diaspora.Rejects notions of static tradition, emphasizing ongoing adaptation and transformation.Gilroy, 1994, p. 214
SpatialityThe networked, ex-centric connections enabled by diaspora.Redefines the concept of space beyond fixed notions of place, emphasizing transnational circuits of interaction.Gilroy, 1994, p. 213
Chaotic ModelA non-linear and complex framework for understanding identity in diaspora.Challenges traditional genealogical narratives, highlighting unpredictable cultural processes and transformations.Gilroy, 1994, p. 213
Anti-EssentialismOpposition to fixed, innate cultural or racial identities.Uses diaspora as a tool to critique essentialist ideologies in favor of fluid, hybrid cultural formations.Gilroy, 1994, p. 211
Cultural EcologyThe adaptive process of cultural identity influenced by diverse environments.Reflects the interaction between diaspora cultures and the varying conditions in which they develop.Gilroy, 1994, p. 210
Contribution of “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory

  • Key Contribution: Gilroy interrogates the legacies of colonialism by positioning diaspora as a site of resistance to imperial and nationalist narratives. He emphasizes forced displacement, cultural hybridity, and the critique of essentialist identities.
  • Specific Insight: By exploring the Black Atlantic experience and the Jewish diaspora as frameworks for understanding displacement, Gilroy challenges linear historical narratives and nationalistic closures (p. 208–210).
  • Relevance: Postcolonial theory benefits from Gilroy’s focus on memory, transnationalism, and the destabilization of territorial belonging.

2. Cultural Studies

  • Key Contribution: Gilroy extends the discourse of cultural studies by introducing diaspora as a lens to analyze intercultural and transnational processes.
  • Specific Insight: He highlights the dynamic and contested nature of cultural identity, focusing on hybridity, creolization, and the interplay of memory and space (p. 213–214).
  • Relevance: Cultural studies’ frameworks for understanding global cultural flows are enriched by Gilroy’s critique of the modernist fixation on fixed, rooted identities.

3. Anti-Essentialist Identity Theory

  • Key Contribution: Gilroy’s work critiques essentialist and fixed notions of identity, advocating for fluid and dynamic cultural formations.
  • Specific Insight: The concept of diaspora becomes a tool to deconstruct racial and cultural essentialisms, challenging nationalist bio-politics and static traditions (p. 211–212).
  • Relevance: Anti-essentialist theories gain a nuanced framework for understanding identity in the context of displacement, hybridity, and cultural flux.

4. Spatial Theory

  • Key Contribution: Gilroy redefines space and spatiality by emphasizing the relational networks of diaspora rather than fixed locations.
  • Specific Insight: He describes diaspora as a network of ex-centric connections, transforming space into a site of transnational interaction rather than geographical rootedness (p. 213).
  • Relevance: Spatial theory is enriched by his focus on movement, circuits, and deterritorialized cultural practices.

5. Memory Studies

  • Key Contribution: Memory is central to Gilroy’s conceptualization of diaspora, emphasizing its role in shaping identity and cultural consciousness.
  • Specific Insight: He examines the “social dynamics of remembrance and commemoration” as alternatives to territorial and genealogical identity (p. 209).
  • Relevance: Memory studies benefit from Gilroy’s articulation of cultural memory as a foundational element of identity in dispersed communities.

6. Postmodernism

  • Key Contribution: Gilroy introduces a chaotic model of diaspora, opposing linear, teleological narratives with dynamic and non-linear cultural processes.
  • Specific Insight: His critique of modernist essentialism aligns with postmodern theories of identity, emphasizing unstable and recombinant cultural formations (p. 213).
  • Relevance: Postmodernism gains a practical application through his exploration of hybridity, iteration, and cultural flux.

7. Feminist and Gender Theory

  • Key Contribution: Gilroy addresses gender dynamics within diaspora, particularly the masculinist bias of traditional nationalist narratives.
  • Specific Insight: He critiques the etymological connection between diaspora and masculinism (via “sperm”) and introduces alternative metaphors like “spore” to complicate gendered understandings of cultural reproduction (p. 211).
  • Relevance: Feminist theory benefits from his inclusion of gender-specific critiques within the broader framework of diaspora studies.

8. Globalization Theory

  • Key Contribution: Gilroy’s focus on diaspora as an “outer-national” term offers a critique of globalization’s homogenizing tendencies.
  • Specific Insight: He contrasts the totalizing ambitions of “global” with the contested, plural nature of diaspora, emphasizing local-global tensions (p. 208).
  • Relevance: Globalization theory is deepened by his emphasis on cultural specificity and resistance to universalizing narratives.

Examples of Critiques Through “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall ApartExplores the cultural disintegration and forced scattering during colonialism, aligning with Gilroy’s idea of diaspora as a product of external forces like colonial violence. The novel’s tension between tradition and modernity mirrors diaspora’s ambivalence about cultural identity and memory (Gilroy, 1994, p. 208).Forced dispersal, cultural memory
Toni Morrison’s BelovedHighlights the role of memory and intergenerational trauma in shaping the Black diaspora. Morrison’s portrayal of rememory aligns with Gilroy’s concept of diasporic consciousness, where memory and commemoration replace territorial belonging (Gilroy, 1994, p. 209).Memory, cultural trauma
Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso SeaCritiques the displacement and marginalization of Caribbean identity under colonial rule. Gilroy’s notion of diaspora challenges fixed notions of identity, emphasizing Antoinette’s fragmented self and her liminal position between colonial and Creole cultures (Gilroy, 1994, p. 211).Spatiality, cultural flux
Criticism Against “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy

1. Lack of Specificity in Defining Diaspora

  • Critics argue that Gilroy’s conceptualization of diaspora is overly broad, encompassing diverse experiences such as forced migration, voluntary movement, and cultural hybridity, which can dilute its analytical power.
  • The term risks becoming a catch-all category, making it less effective for understanding specific historical or cultural phenomena.

2. Overemphasis on Memory and Identity

  • Some scholars believe Gilroy’s focus on memory and cultural identity underemphasizes the material and economic conditions that shape diasporic experiences.
  • Critics argue that the framework does not sufficiently address class, labor, or economic inequalities within diaspora communities.

3. Ambiguity of Anti-Essentialism

  • Gilroy’s rejection of essentialist identities is praised but also critiqued for its ambiguity, as it does not fully resolve how communities can maintain cultural coherence without falling into essentialist frameworks.
  • Critics note that his emphasis on hybridity and fluidity might overlook the need for stable identity markers in political struggles.

4. Limited Focus on Gender and Feminism

  • While Gilroy addresses gender dynamics briefly, some feminist scholars argue that his analysis lacks depth regarding the specific experiences of women in diasporic communities, particularly in relation to reproduction and cultural transmission.
  • The critique of masculinism in diaspora (e.g., its association with “sperm”) is seen as underdeveloped and insufficiently contextualized.

5. Neglect of Local Contexts

  • Gilroy’s transnational approach is critiqued for downplaying the significance of local and regional specificities within diasporic communities.
  • Critics argue that by focusing on global and transnational patterns, the framework risks homogenizing diverse diasporic experiences.

6. Insufficient Engagement with Power Structures

  • Some scholars contend that Gilroy’s work does not sufficiently address how political and institutional power structures shape and constrain diaspora communities.
  • The critique emphasizes that diaspora must be analyzed not just as a cultural phenomenon but also as one deeply influenced by global systems of power and inequality.

7. Minimal Attention to Post-Diasporic Integration

  • Gilroy’s focus on displacement and memory overlooks the dynamics of integration and assimilation that occur in diasporic communities over time.
  • Critics argue that the framework underrepresents how diasporas negotiate their place within host societies and transform over generations.

8. Abstract and Theoretical Orientation

  • Gilroy’s approach is critiqued for being heavily theoretical, which can make it less accessible for practical application in empirical studies of diaspora.
  • The abstract nature of concepts like “diasporic consciousness” and “chaotic model” may hinder their direct applicability to real-world contexts.

9. Western-Centric Focus

  • Some critics highlight that Gilroy’s analysis is rooted primarily in Western and Atlantic perspectives, particularly the Black Atlantic, which may limit its relevance to other diasporic experiences, such as those in Asia or the Pacific.
Representative Quotations from “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Diaspora identifies a relational network, characteristically produced by forced dispersal and reluctant scattering.” (p. 208)Gilroy highlights the defining feature of diaspora: displacement driven by external forces. This relational network emphasizes shared historical and cultural experiences rather than geographic or territorial bonds.
“Life itself is at stake in the way the word suggests flight or coerced rather than freely chosen experiences of displacement.” (p. 208)Emphasizes the traumatic roots of diaspora, rooted in coercion and survival, distinguishing it from voluntary migration or nomadism.
“Diaspora identification exists outside of and sometimes in opposition to the political forms and codes of modern citizenship.” (p. 209)Highlights the tension between diasporic identities and nation-state structures, illustrating how diaspora operates beyond or against traditional political frameworks.
“Diaspora can be used to instantiate a ‘chaotic’ model in which unstable ‘strange attractors’ are the only visible points of fragile and unstable stability amidst social turbulence and cultural flux.” (p. 213)Describes diaspora as a dynamic, unstable framework resisting linear genealogies and fixed cultural identities, emphasizing its fluidity and adaptability.
“The celebrated ‘butterfly effect’ … becomes a commonplace happening if we can adopt this difficult analytical stance.” (p. 210)Invokes complexity theory to show how small diasporic cultural changes can produce significant impacts, illustrating the non-linear dynamics of cultural transmission.
“Diaspora challenges [nationalist bio-politics] by valorizing an implicit conception of supranational kinship and an explicit discomfiture with nationalism.” (p. 211)Critiques nationalism by proposing diaspora as a counter-model, emphasizing cross-border kinship and cultural exchange over rigid, territorialized identities.
“Diaspora embeds us in the conflict between those who agree that we are more or less what we were but cannot agree whether the more or the less should take precedence in political and historical calculations.” (p. 210)Reflects the inherent tension in diasporic identity between continuity and change, highlighting the challenge of navigating cultural and historical transformations.
“Diaspora provides valuable cues and clues for the elaboration of a social ecology of cultural identity and identification.” (p. 210)Suggests that diaspora offers a framework for understanding how identities evolve within diverse environmental, social, and political contexts.
“The new racisms that code biology in cultural terms have been alloyed with newer variants that conscript the body into similar disciplinary service and encode cultural particularity in an understanding of bodily practices.” (p. 211)Critiques the intersection of racism, nationalism, and bio-politics, showing how diaspora challenges these frameworks by emphasizing cultural hybridity and resistance.
“Neither squeamish nationalist essentialism nor lazy, premature post-modernism … is a useful key to the untidy workings of creolized, syncretized, hybridized and impure cultural forms.” (p. 214)Gilroy critiques both essentialism and oversimplified postmodernism, positioning diaspora as a framework for exploring complex, hybrid cultural formations rooted in historical and social contexts.
Suggested Readings: “Diaspora” by Paul Gilroy
  1. GILROY, PAUL. “Diaspora.” Paragraph, vol. 17, no. 3, 1994, pp. 207–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263438. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
  2. Zeleza, Paul Tiyambe. “Rewriting the African Diaspora: Beyond the Black Atlantic.” African Affairs, vol. 104, no. 414, 2005, pp. 35–68. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3518632. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
  3. CHRISMAN, LAURA. “Journeying to Death: Paul Gilroy’s The Black Atlantic.” Postcolonial Contraventions, Manchester University Press, 2003, pp. 73–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt155j6gj.8. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
  4. Redmond, Shana L. “Diaspora.” Keywords for African American Studies, edited by Erica R. Edwards et al., vol. 8, NYU Press, 2018, pp. 63–68. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvwrm5v9.16. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.

“Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran: Summary and Critique

“Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran was first published in Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies (Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1991, pp. 83-99) by the University of Toronto Press.

"Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return" by William Safran: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

“Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran was first published in Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies (Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1991, pp. 83-99) by the University of Toronto Press. This seminal article reshaped the academic discourse on diaspora by proposing a nuanced framework to understand the concept, expanding its usage beyond its historical association with Jewish exile. Safran articulated six defining characteristics of diasporic communities, emphasizing their shared memory of a homeland, feelings of alienation in host societies, and enduring connections to their ancestral land. The work critically examined the “myth of return” as both a source of cultural cohesion and a lens to interpret diasporic identity. Safran’s analysis provided a foundation for interdisciplinary studies in literature, cultural theory, and political science by conceptualizing diasporas as dynamic entities that bridge homeland, host society, and global networks. This paper remains a cornerstone in understanding transnational identity and diaspora’s role in contemporary society and culture.

Summary of “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran
  • Conceptualizing Diaspora: Safran critiques the limited scope of diaspora studies in scholarly discussions, emphasizing its expansion beyond its traditional association with Jewish exile. He proposes a framework defining diaspora through six core characteristics, including dispersion, collective memory of a homeland, alienation from host societies, and the myth of eventual return. This expanded conceptualization positions diasporas as metaphorical representations of various expatriate and minority communities (Safran, 1991, pp. 83-84).
  • Key Features of Diasporic Communities: Safran outlines the criteria for identifying diasporic communities: historical displacement from a homeland, collective memory, perceptions of alienation, and commitment to homeland restoration. He argues that these features help sustain ethnic consciousness and solidarity, using examples such as the Jewish, Armenian, and Palestinian diasporas (p. 85).
  • Comparison Across Diasporas: Different diasporas, such as the Jewish and Armenian, share parallels in their collective memory and cultural preservation, while others, like the Maghrebi and Turkish communities, differ due to their voluntary migration and integration challenges in host countries. The article juxtaposes the “ideal type” of diaspora with variations shaped by sociopolitical contexts (pp. 86-88).
  • The Myth of Return: The myth of return is central to diaspora identity. It solidifies group consciousness despite its often eschatological nature. This myth functions as a cultural and psychological anchor rather than a practical objective. For example, Armenians and Jews maintain this myth differently based on their historical and geopolitical realities (pp. 89-90).
  • Diaspora-Host-Homeland Triangular Relationship: Safran highlights a complex triangular relationship between diasporas, host societies, and homelands. Host countries may exploit diaspora identities for political ends, as seen in the Soviet Union’s manipulation of ethnic groups. Similarly, homelands may utilize diaspora support while displaying ambivalence toward their return (pp. 91-93).
  • Challenges to Integration and Identity: Diasporas often test the pluralism and integration policies of host societies. Safran argues that host societies’ cultural and ideological foundations significantly influence diaspora consciousness. This dynamic is evident in the varying experiences of Jewish, Maghrebi, and Chinese communities in different countries (pp. 94-96).
  • Open Questions and Research Agenda: Safran concludes by identifying critical questions for future research, including the typology of diasporas, the factors sustaining their consciousness, and their role in host-homeland relations. He emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary approaches to address the sociopolitical and cultural dimensions of diasporas (pp. 96-99).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationRelevance/Context
DiasporaCommunities dispersed from their original homeland who maintain connections through collective memory, myths, and aspirations.Expanded beyond Jewish exile to include other ethnic and expatriate communities.
Homeland MythThe belief in an ancestral homeland as the true ideal home, often accompanied by the hope or myth of eventual return.Strengthens collective identity and solidarity within diaspora communities, even when return is impractical or symbolic.
DispersionThe historical or forced movement of a population from a central homeland to two or more peripheral regions.A key characteristic distinguishing diasporas from other migrant or minority groups.
Collective MemoryShared historical memories about the homeland, including its physical, cultural, and political attributes.Critical for maintaining identity and continuity across generations within the diaspora.
AlienationA sense of being unaccepted or marginalized by the host society, resulting in feelings of partial insulation and detachment.Often fuels a diasporic identity and solidarity against perceived exclusion by the host society.
Triangular RelationshipThe complex interactions between diaspora communities, host societies, and their homelands.Highlights how host countries and homelands may manipulate diaspora identities for political or cultural objectives.
Ideal TypeA conceptual model, like the Jewish diaspora, used to define the prototypical characteristics of a diaspora.Used as a benchmark to analyze similarities and differences among various diasporas.
Ethnocommunal ConsciousnessA collective identity shaped by historical, cultural, and emotional ties to the homeland.Essential for preserving cultural identity and resistance to assimilation.
Host SocietyThe country or region where a diaspora community resides, often facing challenges of integration and acceptance.Influences the development and persistence of diaspora consciousness and identity.
Middleman FunctionA socio-economic role in which diaspora communities act as intermediaries in trade, commerce, and cultural exchange.Observed in Jewish, Armenian, and Chinese diasporas, often associated with both opportunity and vulnerability.
Assimilationism vs. Ethnopolitical MobilizationThe spectrum of identity maintenance, ranging from full assimilation into the host culture to active political efforts to preserve and promote diaspora identity.Illustrates the diversity of responses within and among diasporas to host-country dynamics and homeland connections.
Diaspora ConsciousnessAn intellectual and emotional awareness of a shared identity and relationship with the homeland.Central to the persistence and cohesion of diaspora communities over time.
Expatriate CommunityGroups of individuals living outside their homeland who may or may not share the characteristics of a diaspora.Differentiated from diaspora by the lack of enduring myths and collective identity centered on a homeland.
Contribution of “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory

  • Contribution: Safran’s work enhances the understanding of displacement, alienation, and the persistence of colonial legacies in the formation of diasporic identities.
  • Key Insights from the Article: The collective memory of oppression, the alienation from host societies, and the myth of return resonate with postcolonial critiques of marginalization and cultural hybridity (Safran, 1991, pp. 83-85).
  • Relevance to Theory: Postcolonial theorists like Edward Said (Orientalism) and Homi Bhabha (The Location of Culture) discuss similar concepts of cultural displacement and the construction of hybrid identities within diasporic contexts.

2. Cultural Memory Studies

  • Contribution: Safran emphasizes the role of shared memory in maintaining diaspora identities, which intersects with the study of cultural memory in literature.
  • Key Insights from the Article: The retention of historical memories about the homeland—its achievements and traumas—creates a framework for analyzing how literature reconstructs and preserves these memories (p. 84).
  • Relevance to Theory: Scholars like Jan Assmann (Cultural Memory and Early Civilization) highlight how collective memory influences cultural narratives, aligning with Safran’s analysis of diaspora’s reliance on myth and memory.

3. Identity and Subjectivity in Literary Studies

  • Contribution: The article provides a model for understanding the fractured and multifaceted identities of diasporic subjects.
  • Key Insights from the Article: Diasporas are shaped by a continuum of identity from assimilation to ethnopolitical mobilization, offering a lens to analyze characters navigating multiple allegiances in literature (p. 85-86).
  • Relevance to Theory: Judith Butler’s exploration of performative identities in Gender Trouble complements Safran’s discussion on how diasporic identities are negotiated within cultural and political constraints.

4. Nationalism and Transnationalism in Literature

  • Contribution: Safran’s discussion of diasporas as transnational communities critiques the nation-state model and its limitations in encompassing dispersed identities.
  • Key Insights from the Article: The triangular relationship between diaspora, homeland, and host society challenges nationalist discourses and explores the diasporic subject as inherently transnational (pp. 91-93).
  • Relevance to Theory: Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities and Gayatri Spivak’s work on global capitalism and subaltern identities echo Safran’s critiques of nationalism and highlight literature’s role in negotiating these tensions.

5. Trauma Studies

  • Contribution: Safran’s focus on the diasporic experience of displacement and the myth of return intersects with the analysis of trauma in literature.
  • Key Insights from the Article: The article illustrates how diasporas’ collective myths and memories are rooted in historical trauma, such as the Armenian genocide and Jewish persecution (pp. 86-87).
  • Relevance to Theory: Cathy Caruth’s Unclaimed Experience and Dominick LaCapra’s Writing History, Writing Trauma provide frameworks for understanding how diasporic literature engages with unresolved historical and cultural trauma.

6. Hybrid and Diasporic Identities in Postmodern Literature

  • Contribution: Safran’s work on diaspora consciousness aligns with postmodern theories of fragmented and hybrid identities.
  • Key Insights from the Article: The article suggests that diaspora consciousness emerges from the interplay of alienation, cultural memory, and myth, creating a space for hybrid identities (pp. 84-85).
  • Relevance to Theory: Theories by Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy on diasporic hybridity and the “Black Atlantic” echo Safran’s emphasis on the fluid, relational nature of diasporic identity in literature.

7. Migration and Mobility Studies

  • Contribution: Safran’s article provides a foundational lens for exploring themes of mobility and displacement in literary narratives.
  • Key Insights from the Article: The dynamics of migration and settlement inform the sociocultural and political dimensions of diasporic narratives (pp. 86-88).
  • Relevance to Theory: John Urry’s Mobilities and literary studies on migration by Salman Rushdie and Jhumpa Lahiri further exemplify the intersection of mobility and identity, grounded in Safran’s analysis.
Examples of Critiques Through “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran
Work and AuthorApplication of Safran’s ConceptsSpecific Critiques
The Namesake by Jhumpa LahiriExplores alienation, cultural memory, and identity struggles in the Indian-American diaspora.Safran’s idea of collective memory (p. 84) critiques Gogol’s detachment from his ancestral culture, highlighting the generational conflict over cultural preservation.
Season of Migration to the North by Tayeb SalihExamines postcolonial displacement and the triangular relationship between homeland, host society, and self.Safran’s triangular relationship (p. 91) critiques Mustafa’s conflicting ties to Sudan and England, emphasizing his alienation in both settings.
Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi AdichieHighlights migration, identity, and the challenges of returning to a homeland after diaspora experience.Safran’s “myth of return” (p. 85) critiques Ifemelu’s mixed feelings about returning to Nigeria, emphasizing its role in reshaping diaspora consciousness.
White Teeth by Zadie SmithInvestigates intergenerational identity and the myth of return in the British-Jamaican and Bangladeshi diasporas.Safran’s notion of the “myth of return” (p. 85) critiques characters’ attempts to reconcile their ancestral traditions with the pressures of modern assimilation.
Criticism Against “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran
  • Overgeneralization of Diaspora Characteristics
    Safran’s framework has been critiqued for its reliance on a rigid set of criteria, such as collective memory and the myth of return. Critics argue that many diasporas, particularly modern or hybridized ones, may not fit neatly into these categories, leading to exclusion or oversimplification.
  • Limited Focus on Postmodern Diasporas
    The article primarily examines historical and traditional diasporas, such as Jewish and Armenian communities, while offering limited exploration of contemporary, fluid, and transnational diaspora identities that challenge fixed notions of homeland and return.
  • Neglect of Host Society Dynamics
    Critics suggest that Safran places disproportionate emphasis on the homeland and diaspora relationship while neglecting the evolving role of host societies in shaping diasporic identities, particularly in multicultural or globalized contexts.
  • Static Conception of Identity
    Safran’s approach has been critiqued for implying that diaspora identities are static, rooted in collective memory and myths. Critics argue that diasporic identities are dynamic and continuously negotiated through interactions with both host and homeland cultures.
  • Western-Centric Perspective
    The framework has been criticized for predominantly using examples from Eurocentric or Western-dominated diasporas while offering less insight into diasporas originating from non-Western or indigenous contexts.
  • Insufficient Exploration of Intersectionality
    Critics point out that Safran’s model does not adequately address the intersection of race, gender, class, and religion in shaping diasporic experiences, thereby oversimplifying complex identity negotiations.
  • Overemphasis on Homeland Attachment
    The focus on the myth of return has been critiqued as overly romanticized and not reflective of the lived realities of many diasporas, where attachment to the homeland may weaken or transform into a symbolic rather than practical connection.
  • Limited Agency of Diasporic Communities
    Safran’s work has been critiqued for portraying diasporas as reactive entities defined by host or homeland conditions, rather than active agents reshaping their environments and identities.
Representative Quotations from “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Diaspora communities are expatriate minority communities whose members share several of the following characteristics.”Introduces the core framework for defining diasporas, emphasizing shared traits among dispersed communities.
“They retain a collective memory, vision, or myth about their original homeland—its physical location, history, and achievements.”Highlights the importance of cultural and historical memory in sustaining diasporic identity and cohesion.
“Diaspora consciousness is maintained by the belief that they are not—and perhaps cannot be—fully accepted by their host society.”Explains the psychological and sociological underpinnings of diasporic solidarity rooted in a sense of alienation.
“The myth of return becomes a mechanism to sustain ethnic consciousness when other cohesive factors weaken.”Discusses how the idea of return to a homeland preserves identity even when ties to religion, language, or community decline.
“Diasporas are shaped by a triangular relationship between the homeland, the diaspora, and the host society.”Identifies the interaction among these three entities as central to the dynamics of diasporic existence.
“The Armenian diaspora shares similarities with the Jewish diaspora, including memories of persecution, dispersion, and a middleman role in host societies.”Draws historical and social parallels between these two prominent diasporas, emphasizing shared experiences.
“The myth of return often serves more as a symbolic or eschatological concept than a literal objective for many diasporas.”Points to the symbolic role of the idea of returning to a homeland, questioning its practicality in contemporary diasporic contexts.
“The host society may emphasize diaspora sentiments for its own purposes, such as encouraging or suppressing cultural or political expressions.”Discusses how host societies manipulate diaspora identities for political or social reasons, complicating assimilation or cultural maintenance.
“Homelands often view their diasporas with mixed feelings, appreciating their support but disdaining their cultural transformations.”Examines the tension between homeland and diaspora communities regarding cultural authenticity and modernization.
“The concept of diaspora extends beyond ethnicity to include religious, ideological, and economic forms of dispersion.”Expands the understanding of diaspora to encompass varied forms of community and identity beyond ethnic frameworks.
Suggested Readings: “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran
  1. Safran, William. “The Jewish Diaspora in a Comparative and Theoretical Perspective.” Israel Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 2005, pp. 36–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30245753. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
  2. Clifford, James. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 3, 1994, pp. 302–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/656365. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
  3. Baser, Bahar, and Ashok Swain. “DIASPORAS AS PEACEMAKERS: THIRD PARTY MEDIATION IN HOMELAND CONFLICTS.” International Journal on World Peace, vol. 25, no. 3, 2008, pp. 7–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20752844. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
  4. Oonk, Gijsbert. “Global Indian Diasporas: Exploring Trajectories of Migration and Theory.” Global Indian Diasporas: Exploring Trajectories of Migration and Theory, edited by Gijsbert Oonk, Amsterdam University Press, 2007, pp. 9–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n1bq.4. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.

“Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman: Summary and Critique

“Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman first appeared in the Fall 2004 issue of Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature (Volume 23, No. 2), published by the University of Tulsa۔

"Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora" by Susan Stanford Friedman: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

“Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman first appeared in the Fall 2004 issue of Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature (Volume 23, No. 2), published by the University of Tulsa. This seminal work examines the concept of “home” within the context of migration, dislocation, and cultural hybridity. Friedman explores the poetics of diaspora, focusing on how identity, intimacy, and cultural belonging are constantly negotiated through the tensions of being “in-between” places and traditions. Her analysis integrates literary, feminist, and postcolonial theories, making the essay pivotal in understanding the relationship between migration and identity formation. By dissecting narratives of exile, displacement, and rootedness, Friedman expands the discourse on globalization and multiculturalism, offering profound insights into the psychological and cultural implications of movement and resettlement in contemporary literature and theory.

Summary of “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

1. Conceptualizing Diaspora and Home

  • Multifaceted Experiences of Migration: Friedman illustrates the contradictions of home through the story of Saleema, a young Pakistani-American, embodying tensions between cultural expectations and personal identity (Friedman, p. 189).
  • Home as Both Familiar and Estranged: Drawing from Gloria Anzaldúa, Friedman discusses how home is a psychological space—rooted in one’s identity yet perpetually elusive. “I carry ‘home’ on my back” reflects the ongoing negotiation of belonging (Anzaldúa, cited p. 21).

2. The Poetics of Dislocation

  • Home as Utopia and Nowhere: Using linguistic play on “nowhere” and “now here,” Friedman highlights the duality of home as a desired yet unreachable ideal (Friedman, p. 192).
  • Cultural and Bodily Markers of Alienation: Diasporic bodies, marked by race, gender, and appearance, often become sites of both resistance and marginalization, illustrating Homi Bhabha’s concept of the “affective body” (Friedman, p. 190).

3. Memory and Writing as Homes

  • Writing to Reclaim Home: Authors like Caryl Phillips and Adrienne Rich use literary creation as a space to reconcile fragmented identities. Memory and writing act as homes that individuals recreate through artistic expression (Phillips, p. 131; Rich, p. 49).
  • Home in Diasporic Literature: Friedman emphasizes that writers reimagine home through memories of dislocation, often marked by loss and longing (Friedman, p. 206).

4. Gender and Violence

  • The Violence of Home: Examining Edwidge Danticat’s Breath, Eyes, Memory, Friedman reveals how home, as a concept, can also be a site of violence, particularly for women whose bodies are policed by cultural traditions (Danticat, p. 154).
  • Partition and Loss: Through examples like the Partition of India, Friedman discusses how geopolitical events leave bodies and homes fragmented, with survivors navigating ruptured cultural and personal geographies (Friedman, p. 200).

5. Resilience in Displacement

  • Negotiating Between Worlds: Friedman describes how diasporic individuals inhabit spaces of in-betweenness, such as Saleema’s choice to remain “just friends” with a partner, reflecting a middle ground between agency and cultural obligations (Friedman, p. 190).
  • The Universality of Displacement: From Mira Nair’s cinematic works to Meena Alexander’s poetic reflections, Friedman suggests that navigating displacement is a universal yet deeply personal endeavor (Alexander, p. 147).

6. Conclusion: Poetics of Dislocation

  • Writing as Survival: Friedman concludes that for diasporic individuals, writing about home is a means of survival, capturing the fragmented, fluid nature of identity in motion. “The rapture of writing rupture” encapsulates the transformative power of narrative (Friedman, p. 207).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationKey References in the Article
DiasporaA state of displacement, involving cultural, geographical, and psychological dislocation. Diaspora challenges notions of fixed identities and homes.Saleema’s story; references to Homi Bhabha and Gloria Anzaldúa (p. 189, 271).
Home as Utopia/NowhereThe paradoxical idea that “home” is both an idealized space of belonging and a concept that is perpetually unattainable.Linguistic play on “nowhere” and “now here” (p. 192).
Affective BodyThe body as a site of emotional and cultural inscription, marked by sensations of pleasure, pain, and identity struggles.Homi Bhabha’s framework on bodies and social authority (p. 190).
BorderlandsThe psychological and physical spaces of in-betweenness where individuals negotiate identities that transcend borders.Gloria Anzaldúa’s reflections on cultural hybridity and identity (p. 21).
HomesicknessThe dual longing for and estrangement from home, representing both desire and alienation.Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz; Freud’s uncanny concept (p. 191-193).
Partition of the SelfThe emotional and cultural fragmentation experienced due to geopolitical or personal dislocations.Narratives of Indian Partition, such as Jyotirmoyee Devi’s The River Churning (p. 200).
UnhomelinessThe condition of feeling alien or displaced within one’s home or culture; linked to Freud’s concept of the uncanny.Homi Bhabha’s analysis of the “unhomely” (p. 271).
Writing as HomeThe act of writing as a process of reclaiming identity and reconstructing an imagined sense of home.Reflections by Caryl Phillips and Adrienne Rich (p. 206-207).
Cultural HybridityThe coexistence and interaction of diverse cultural identities within diasporic individuals.Chandra Talpade Mohanty and Saleema’s navigation of Pakistani-American identity (p. 190).
Imaginary HomelandThe idealized and often mythical conception of a homeland, constructed through memory and longing.Salman Rushdie’s concept of imagined homelands; Caryl Phillips (p. 206).
Violence on the BodyThe physical and symbolic violence experienced by bodies in patriarchal, colonial, or diasporic contexts.Edwidge Danticat’s Breath, Eyes, Memory (p. 154).
Rapture of Writing RuptureThe transformative power of writing to heal and articulate the fragmented self caused by dislocation.Virginia Woolf and Susan Friedman’s reflections on writing as survival (p. 207).
Temporal and Spatial DislocationThe experience of being unmoored from a specific time or place, creating a sense of instability.Mira Nair’s films and migrant narratives (p. 196).
ExileA state of being away from one’s home, often imposed, fostering a sense of estrangement and creativity.Edward Said’s reflections on exile and belonging (p. 204).
Contribution of “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Diaspora Studies

  • Conceptual Framework for Diaspora: Friedman expands the notion of diaspora by exploring the lived experiences of displacement, cultural hybridity, and identity negotiation, as exemplified in Saleema’s narrative and Homi Bhabha’s theories (p. 189, 271).
  • Intersection of Personal and Geopolitical: The essay highlights how diaspora is shaped by historical events (e.g., Partition of India) and individual struggles, linking diasporic identities with broader socio-political contexts (p. 200).
  • Imaginary Homeland: Drawing from Salman Rushdie, Friedman examines how diasporic subjects construct idealized homelands through memory and longing (p. 206).

2. Postcolonial Theory

  • Unhomeliness and the Colonial Subject: Friedman uses Homi Bhabha’s concept of the “unhomely” to explore how postcolonial subjects experience alienation within both their adopted and native lands (p. 271).
  • Partition Narratives: The analysis of works like The River Churning and What the Body Remembers reveals how colonial violence fragments personal and cultural identities (p. 200).
  • Hybridity and Borderlands: Friedman incorporates Gloria Anzaldúa’s concept of the Borderlands to discuss the negotiation of hybrid identities in the diaspora (p. 21).

3. Feminist Literary Theory

  • The Body as Text: Friedman examines how the female body becomes a site of cultural inscription, control, and resistance, referencing works by Adrienne Rich and Anne Sexton (p. 190).
  • Home as Patriarchal Space: The article critiques traditional notions of home as a site of patriarchal dominance, linking it to feminist struggles for autonomy (p. 201).
  • Women’s Writing and Diaspora: Friedman emphasizes how women writers (e.g., Meena Alexander, Gloria Anzaldúa) articulate dislocation through poetic and narrative forms, transforming exile into a space of creativity (p. 204).

4. Memory and Trauma Theory

  • Memory as a Rewriting of Home: Drawing from Azade Seyhan and Edward Said, the essay explores how memory reconstructs home and identity in the aftermath of displacement (p. 204).
  • Trauma of Partition and Dislocation: Friedman analyzes how violence, such as in Breath, Eyes, Memory and Partition narratives, shapes cultural memory and identity (p. 200).
  • Healing Through Writing: The process of writing is framed as a means of articulating and overcoming trauma, resonating with Virginia Woolf’s concept of the “shock of arrival” (p. 207).

5. Spatial and Temporal Theories

  • Home as a Temporal Construct: Friedman interrogates the idea of home as both an imagined past and a desired future, linking it to spatial dislocation (p. 192).
  • Nowhere/Now Here: Inspired by Roger Friedland and Deirdre Boden, the essay explores how diasporic identities are shaped by spatial simultaneity and temporality (p. 192).

6. Narrative and Poetics

  • Writing as Reclamation: The essay frames writing as an act of reclaiming and reshaping displaced identities, contributing to theories on narrative and poetics (p. 206).
  • Palimpsest of Identity: The concept of the self as a layered, shifting entity, informed by fragmented cultural and geographical experiences, is central to Friedman’s argument (p. 207).
  • Contradictions in Home Narratives: Friedman critiques the trope of “homecoming” in literature, proposing a poetics of dislocation instead (p. 205).

7. Globalization and Cultural Studies

  • Transnational Identities: The essay connects diaspora to globalization, examining how identities are shaped by transnational flows of culture, memory, and economics (p. 196).
  • Cultural Commodification of Home: Friedman critiques how diasporic narratives can be commodified in global cultural markets, referencing Mira Nair’s films (p. 196).
Examples of Critiques Through “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman
Literary WorkCritique Through “Bodies on the Move”
Breath, Eyes, Memory by Edwidge DanticatFriedman critiques how Danticat’s novel portrays the intersection of personal and cultural trauma. The Haitian custom of “testing” parallels state violence, emphasizing the body as a site of inherited trauma and cultural resistance.
The River Churning by Jyotirmoyee DeviExplores Partition of India as a metaphor for dislocation. Friedman analyzes how the protagonist’s trauma reflects the violence of national and cultural identity rupture. The narrative examines exile and societal rejection post-Partition.
The House on Mango Street by Sandra CisnerosExamines Esperanza’s search for autonomy and identity. Friedman connects this quest to diasporic longing, showing how home is simultaneously a site of belonging and estrangement, revealing identity in motion.
What the Body Remembers by Shauna Singh BaldwinCritiques how Partition reshapes personal and collective identities. Friedman highlights the juxtaposition of displacement and empowerment, particularly how dislocation can foster resilience and self-redefinition.
Criticism Against “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman
  • Overgeneralization of Diaspora Experiences
    Critics argue that Friedman tends to generalize the diasporic experience, often glossing over the nuanced differences between forced displacement (e.g., refugees) and voluntary migration (e.g., expatriates).
  • Focus on Elite Diasporas
    The analysis heavily features examples from privileged or elite diasporic communities, such as Saleema, whose challenges are cushioned by wealth and status, potentially neglecting the struggles of marginalized or economically disadvantaged migrants.
  • Romanticization of Dislocation
    Some reviewers suggest that Friedman’s emphasis on dislocation as a site for creativity and identity formation risks romanticizing the trauma and alienation experienced by displaced individuals.
  • Lack of Intersectional Analysis
    Critics point out that while Friedman engages with race, gender, and culture, her discussion could further incorporate an intersectional analysis of class, sexuality, and ability in shaping diasporic identities.
  • Western-Centric Frameworks
    The theoretical grounding draws heavily from Western literary and cultural theorists (e.g., Homi Bhabha, Gloria Anzaldúa), which some argue may limit its applicability to non-Western diasporas or frameworks.
  • Abstract and Dense Theoretical Language
    The text’s theoretical density and abstract language make it less accessible to general readers or those from disciplines outside literary theory.
  • Minimal Focus on Historical Context
    While Friedman engages with cultural and emotional aspects of diaspora, some critics note a lack of deeper historical and political contextualization of the diasporic movements discussed.
  • Limited Critique of the Concept of “Home”
    Critics suggest that the essay could delve more critically into the concept of “home” itself, questioning its construction and implications in different geopolitical contexts.
Representative Quotations from “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“One without a home becomes a traveler.”Reflects the core idea of diasporic identity as dynamic and constantly evolving, where movement becomes a defining aspect of existence.
“Identity is changed by the journey.”Emphasizes how diasporic journeys transform individual and collective identities, shaping new understandings of self and belonging.
“Diaspora is hard on intimacy.”Highlights the strain and emotional complexities that displacement and cultural dislocation impose on personal relationships and family dynamics.
“Home is an idea, an inner geography where the ache to belong finally quits.”Suggests that home transcends physicality and becomes a psychological construct, often influenced by nostalgia and longing.
“Living in a state of psychic unrest, in a Borderland is what makes poets write and artists create.”Indicates how dislocation and the tension of living between cultures and worlds can fuel creativity and artistic expression.
“To inhabit the body of the stranger is to be never at home.”Describes the alienation and exclusion faced by those who appear culturally or physically different in their host societies, making their sense of home precarious.
“Migration creates the desire for home, which in turn produces the rewriting of home.”Explores how the experience of migration redefines the concept of home, often necessitating a reevaluation or creation of a new identity tied to both past and present experiences.
“The story about home is the story of trying to get there.”Suggests that the notion of home is inherently tied to the journey or struggle of returning, physically or metaphorically, reflecting the diasporic condition.
“Home comes into being most powerfully when it is gone, lost, left behind, desired and imagined.”Argues that the concept of home is often most deeply felt and articulated in its absence, resonating with diasporic communities who romanticize and idealize their lost origins.
“Writing about the loss of home brings one home again.”Posits that creative and literary expression becomes a way to reconstruct and reclaim home in the face of dislocation, providing solace and continuity amid disruption.
Suggested Readings: “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman
  1. Friedman, Susan Stanford. “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, vol. 23, no. 2, 2004, pp. 189–212. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/20455187. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
  2. Alam, Fakrul. “The Mythos of Return and Recent Indian English Diasporic Fiction.” Writing India Anew: Indian English Fiction 2000-2010, edited by Krishna Sen and Rituparna Roy, Amsterdam University Press, 2013, pp. 247–58. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt45kd51.18. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
  3. Lehmann, Sophia. “In Search of a Mother Tongue: Locating Home in Diaspora.” MELUS, vol. 23, no. 4, 1998, pp. 101–18. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/467830. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
  4. Hussain, Asaf. “The Indian Diaspora in Britain: Political Interventionism and Diaspora Activism.” Asian Affairs, vol. 32, no. 3, 2005, pp. 189–208. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30172878. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.

“Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young: Summary and Critique

“Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young first appeared in 2019 in the anthology French Thought and Literary Theory in the UK, edited by Irving Goh and published by Taylor & Francis Group.

"Theory, Philosophy, Literature" by Robert C. Young: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young

“Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young first appeared in 2019 in the anthology French Thought and Literary Theory in the UK, edited by Irving Goh and published by Taylor & Francis Group. This seminal essay examines the arrival and assimilation of French theory in British intellectual circles, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, contextualizing it within the broader history of Anglo-French intellectual exchanges. Young highlights the allure of French theoretical texts, which offered a tantalizing complexity, linguistic richness, and a promise of intellectual transformation. He situates this movement within a historical trajectory of philosophical engagement dating back to the French Revolution and beyond, noting its ties to left-wing radicalism and the critique of neoliberal ideologies. The essay underscores the literary dimensions of theory, arguing that its enigmatic and rigorous nature parallels the evocative depth of modernist literature. By connecting the theoretical to the literary, Young illuminates the transformative potential of theory not only as a mode of critique but as a form of literature in its own right. This work challenges conventional boundaries between disciplines and continues to shape debates in literary and cultural studies, offering insights into the enduring impact of French theory on global intellectual traditions.

Summary of “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young
  • Introduction to French Theory in Britain: Initially a niche area in the 1960s and 1970s, French theory captivated British intellectuals with its linguistic intricacies, cultural alterity, and philosophical complexity. The allure stemmed from its resistance to easy comprehension and its promise of intellectual transformation (Young, 2019, pp. 2-3).
  • Historical Roots of French Influence: French theoretical traditions have influenced British thought since the 18th century, including during the French Revolution and the spread of republican ideals. The philosophical exchange also drew on European revolutionary and post-revolutionary intellectual movements (Young, 2019, pp. 4-5).
  • Resistance to Theory: Criticism of French theory emerged from empiricist British critics, Marxists wary of theorists like Louis Althusser, and academics concerned with its abstract nature. This reflects a broader skepticism toward “continental” intellectual traditions in Anglo-American contexts (Young, 2019, pp. 5-6).
  • Literature’s Role in Theory: French theory extended the modernist fascination with linguistic and conceptual impenetrability. The integration of literary elements into theory underscored its ability to evoke emotional and intellectual responses, akin to literature itself (Young, 2019, pp. 6-7).
  • Philosophical Exclusion and Impact: The analytic tradition’s dominance in Anglo-American philosophy excluded broader continental approaches, creating intellectual vacuums filled by literary critics engaging with French thinkers like Derrida and Foucault (Young, 2019, pp. 7-8).
  • Interdisciplinary Encounters: The arrival of French theory catalyzed cross-disciplinary collaborations, particularly within philosophy, language studies, and literary criticism, exploring themes like translation, alterity, and ethical inquiries (Young, 2019, pp. 8-9).
  • Global Influence and Decolonization: French theory’s global trajectory connected European traditions to postcolonial critiques. Writers like Fanon and Glissant reshaped theory by integrating anti-colonial perspectives, emphasizing self-critical traditions within European philosophy (Young, 2019, pp. 11-12).
  • Theoretical Writing as Literature: Young argues that the literary qualities of theorists, including Derrida, Adorno, and Cixous, elevate their works beyond mere philosophy into the realm of creative and reflective literature (Young, 2019, pp. 12-13).
  • Contemporary Relevance: Despite claims that theory is “over,” Young asserts its enduring importance. Theory persists as a self-reflective, critical tradition that engages with universal questions of existence, suffering, and knowledge (Young, 2019, pp. 13-14).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young
Theoretical Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationReference/Context
AlterityThe state of being other or different; used in French theory to explore the unfamiliar and the foreign as intellectual stimuli.Highlighted as central to the allure of French theory, offering new possibilities and challenges (Young, 2019, p. 2).
Continental PhilosophyA European tradition of philosophical thought, often emphasizing language, subjectivity, and existence.Contrasted with Anglo-American analytic traditions, which sidelined it in the 20th century (Young, 2019, p. 7).
Delphic ObscurityThe characteristic complexity and opacity of French theory, making it resistant to straightforward interpretation.Described as both a challenge and an attraction for readers (Young, 2019, p. 3).
HermeneuticsThe theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of texts.Referenced in connection to Coleridge and German traditions influencing British criticism (Young, 2019, p. 5).
LiterarinessThe quality that makes a text “literary,” including its aesthetic, formal, and conceptual attributes.Explored in the context of how theory overlaps with and enhances literature (Young, 2019, p. 7).
Self-Critical ThinkingA defining trait of European philosophical traditions, involving critique of their own assumptions and frameworks.Illustrated in the works of thinkers like Derrida and Fanon (Young, 2019, p. 12).
TranslationThe act of rendering a text from one language to another; a key theme in theory for examining language, meaning, and cultural exchange.French theory’s focus on translation emphasized its role in understanding alterity and ethics (Young, 2019, p. 8).
Ethics of OthernessAn ethical framework that prioritizes the recognition and respect for the “Other” in all its forms.Central to postcolonial critiques and French theoretical engagement with identity (Young, 2019, p. 9).
NarratologyThe study of narrative structure and the mechanisms of storytelling.Linked to structuralist traditions and Russian formalists, surviving in modern theory (Young, 2019, p. 9).
Jacobin RadicalismA political association with radical leftist ideologies originating from the French Revolution.Discussed in the context of British fears of French theory’s revolutionary potential (Young, 2019, p. 4).
Opacity as ValueThe idea that the complexity and difficulty of a theoretical text contribute to its depth and intellectual worth.Discussed regarding Derrida and other theorists’ influence (Young, 2019, pp. 9-10).
Decolonization of TheoryThe process of broadening theoretical frameworks to include perspectives from non-European and colonized cultures.Explored through figures like Fanon and Césaire, who challenged Eurocentric frameworks (Young, 2019, p. 12).
Philosophy as LiteratureThe convergence of philosophy and literature, where philosophical texts achieve literary resonance.Illustrated by writers like Derrida, Adorno, and Benjamin (Young, 2019, p. 13).
UntranslatabilityThe idea that certain terms or concepts cannot be fully conveyed across languages, reflecting unique cultural or philosophical contexts.Explored through Cassin’s Dictionary of Untranslatables (Young, 2019, p. 13).
Contribution of “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young to Literary Theory/Theories

1. French Theory and its Intellectual Appeal

  • French theory, arriving in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s, attracted British intellectuals for its intellectual intensity, and a sense of alterity (foreignness).
  • Key Concept: The complexity and opacity of French theory challenged readers, offering intellectual risks and rewards in a manner similar to the challenges posed by modernist texts.

2. Risk and Difficulty in Theory

  • The challenge of theory was compared to navigating an unknown, potentially dangerous city, where intellectual effort was required to understand complex concepts that often eluded simple comprehension.
  • Philosophical Implication: Theory’s resistance to easy interpretation aligned it with modernism’s evocative, though frustrating, ambiguities.

3. Historical Context of French Theory in Britain

  • French thought has a deep-rooted history in the UK, dating back to the French Revolution, and continuing with thinkers like Edmund Burke who opposed radical French ideology.
  • Political and Ideological Clash: French theory’s radical, left-wing associations influenced the intellectual climate of Britain, paralleling earlier historical debates on radical republicanism and conservatism.

4. Theoretical Influence in the 20th Century

  • French theory revived in the 1960s and 1970s, after political movements like May 1968, bringing with it a new wave of intellectual ferment, engaging with Marxist, structuralist, and post-structuralist ideas.
  • Impact: Thinkers such as Althusser, Derrida, and Foucault reshaped academic discourse, introducing new paradigms of ideology, deconstruction, and power dynamics.

5. Philosophy and Literature

  • French philosophy often converged with literary criticism, blurring the lines between the two fields. Figures like Nietzsche and Heidegger influenced both philosophy and literary theory.
  • Theoretical Contribution: Literary theory began to explore the epistemological and ontological status of literature, questioning its role in shaping knowledge and understanding.

6. The Role of Obscurity in Theory

  • The concept of obscurity in theory, particularly through Derrida and Barthes, was highlighted as a key element that made French theory appealing and enduring.
  • Theory as Literary Art: The complexity and opacity in theory contributed to its literary quality, making it an intellectually pleasurable, albeit difficult, pursuit.

7. Interdisciplinary Contributions

  • French theory influenced literary criticism by introducing philosophical thinking into literary analysis, with a focus on language, translation, and alterity (otherness).
  • Examples: Derrida’s deconstruction, Foucault’s studies on power, and Barthes’ cultural critique brought philosophical inquiry into the realm of literature, challenging traditional boundaries.

8. Self-Critique in Western Thought

  • Young discussed how the European tradition of self-reflection and critique, exemplified by thinkers like Derrida, Fanon, and Du Bois, formed a core aspect of the theoretical tradition.
  • Self-Critical Thinking: The theoretical tradition includes constant reflection on its own structures, leading to the inclusion of voices from outside Europe that critique the Eurocentric foundations of Western philosophy and theory.

9. Literary and Philosophical Crossover

  • Literary theory was understood as a form of philosophical writing, drawing from the work of philosophers who integrated literary qualities in their works.
  • Philosophical Fiction: Figures like Benjamin and Adorno showed that philosophy itself could be deeply intertwined with literature, allowing for a complex, reflective engagement with both disciplines.

10. Globalization and the Decline of French Theory

  • The globalization of intellectual discourse and the diversification of philosophical thought led to a broader, more international canon of theory, moving beyond the dominance of French theory.
  • Contemporary Shifts: Thinkers like Edward Said and Homi Bhabha, along with postcolonial critiques, demonstrated that theory could no longer be confined to Western, particularly European, paradigms but had to include voices from the global South.
Examples of Critiques Through “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young
Literary WorkTheoretical ApproachCritiqueKey Philosophical and Literary Concepts
“1984” by George OrwellMarxism and IdeologyYoung suggests that Marxist theory, including Althusser’s concept of ideology, can be applied to 1984 to examine the role of state control over language and thought.Ideology, State Control, Repressive Structures
“The Waste Land” by T.S. EliotStructuralism and LanguageYoung highlights how structuralist theory, particularly Roland Barthes’ poetics, can decode the dense allusions in The Waste Land to uncover the underlying cultural and social structures.Language, Structuralism, Intertextuality
“Beloved” by Toni MorrisonPostcolonial Criticism and AlterityDrawing on postcolonial theory, Young suggests that Beloved explores the trauma of slavery and the struggle for identity, using Fanon’s critique of colonialism and cultural erasure.Trauma, Identity, Colonialism, Postcolonialism
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph ConradPostcolonial Criticism and European Self-CritiqueUsing Derrida’s concept of deconstruction and Fanon’s work, Young critiques Conrad’s portrayal of Africa and colonialism, emphasizing how the narrative reflects Europe’s internal contradictions.Postcolonialism, Self-Critique, Eurocentrism, Deconstruction
Explanation:
  • Marxism and Ideology in 1984 focuses on the way Orwell critiques capitalist societies by showing how totalitarian regimes manipulate ideology and control thought.
  • Structuralism and Language applied to The Waste Land emphasizes how its intricate allusions and literary techniques reveal deeper cultural and social systems.
  • Postcolonial Criticism and Alterity in Beloved examines the effects of slavery and colonialism, exploring how identity is shaped by historical trauma and oppression.
  • Postcolonial Criticism and European Self-Critique in Heart of Darkness critiques Conrad’s representation of Africa through the lens of European philosophical self-reflection, showing how it embodies colonial biases and contradictions.
Criticism Against “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young
  • Overemphasis on Complexity and Obscurity
    • Critics argue that the work places excessive value on the difficult and opaque nature of French theory, making it inaccessible to a wider audience. This can alienate readers who prefer clearer, more accessible theoretical approaches.
  • Eurocentric Focus
    • Despite Young’s acknowledgment of non-European contributions, his discussion still heavily centers on European intellectual traditions, particularly French theory. This can reinforce a Eurocentric perspective, sidelining critical voices from outside the Western canon.
  • Narrow Definition of Theory
    • The article presents “theory” in a limited sense, often excluding non-Western or non-continental philosophical traditions. Some critics feel that theory, as presented, does not adequately consider global or indigenous intellectual traditions, limiting its scope.
  • Idealization of French Thought
    • Young’s admiration for French thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, and Barthes has been critiqued as somewhat idealized. Some argue that the elevation of French theory over other intellectual traditions perpetuates a hierarchy that undermines the value of other schools of thought.
  • Dismissal of Practical Application
    • Critics suggest that Young’s discussion on the abstract nature of theory and philosophy ignores the practical implications of these ideas in real-world contexts, such as in policy, activism, or societal change.
  • Overreliance on Obscure Language
    • The use of complex jargon and theoretical abstraction in the text has been criticized for contributing to the idea that philosophy and theory must be elusive or difficult. This style can discourage engagement from readers who are unfamiliar with academic jargon or prefer more straightforward discourse.
  • Neglect of Political and Historical Context
    • While Young mentions some historical moments like the French Revolution, critics argue that his focus on theoretical developments sometimes overlooks the broader political and historical contexts in which these ideas were formulated, which can reduce the practical relevance of the theories.
  • Conflation of Literary and Philosophical Writing
    • Some critics take issue with Young’s tendency to blur the lines between literary criticism and philosophy, suggesting that this conflation can muddy the waters between the two disciplines, making it unclear what the distinct contributions of each are.
Representative Quotations from “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Much of their passion for French theory was driven by a desire for intellectual intensity, for the experience of alterity, by a tantalising taste for the foreign.”Young highlights the allure of French theory for British intellectuals in the 1960s and 1970s, noting that their interest was motivated by a desire for intellectual challenge and engagement with the “foreign” ideas and complexities within French philosophical traditions.
“To make the leap into theory was full of risk and danger. It was like being suddenly transported to a far-away unknown city…”This metaphor illustrates the perceived complexity and unpredictability of engaging with theory. It suggests that diving into intellectual thought is an adventurous and risky endeavor, requiring trust and a willingness to face the unknown.
“Theory’s intriguing refusal to yield to simple comprehension, its resistance to interpretation, its promise of secrets to be obtained…”Young emphasizes theory’s inherent complexity and its refusal to offer clear or easy answers. It appeals to those who are drawn to its mysteries and its potential to offer transformative, albeit elusive, insights.
“The texts of modernism had been unpicked, their treasures laid out on display in the glass cases of reader’s guides…”Here, Young critiques the way modernist works were deconstructed and oversimplified in academic discourse. The original allure of modernist literature—the complexity of its references and the promise of deeper meaning—was diluted by over-analysis and the desire to explain every allusion.
“Theory held out its precarious promise that its complexity was an altogether different intricacy of conception…”Young describes theory as offering a type of intellectual complexity distinct from literary impressionism. Unlike the evocative yet fleeting qualities of modernist literature, theory presents challenges that push the boundaries of intellectual and philosophical understanding.
“French theory in the UK has a long history, going back to the eighteenth century at least.”This statement situates French intellectual traditions as deeply embedded in British intellectual history. Young suggests that French theory has long been influential in shaping critical thought in the UK, even prior to its resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s.
“The war between Britain and France was not simply a conventional war between rival states – it was also an ideological war…”Young frames the conflict between Britain and France as not just a political or military rivalry, but also as a clash of ideologies, particularly the radical republicanism of the French against the conservative monarchy of Britain. This historical backdrop helps explain the tension around French theory.
“The arrival of French theory in Britain in the late 1960s and 1970s falls within a clear historical pattern…”Young contextualizes the rise of French theory in Britain within a broader historical framework, linking it to the political upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly post-May 1968, and illustrating how intellectual movements often emerge in response to political change.
“The very word ‘theory,’ in the context of the humanities or social sciences, has continued to bear these ancient associations…”Young acknowledges the longstanding association of “theory” with radical thought, particularly in the context of left-wing political movements. He notes that the term has historical roots tied to revolution and ideological challenges, which persist in its contemporary academic usage.
“Theory does not just comprise some form of ‘critical thinking’: it is fundamentally self-critical thinking…”Young differentiates theory from mere critical thinking by asserting that theory involves constant self-reflection and self-critique. It challenges established norms and assumptions, fostering intellectual growth by questioning the very foundations of knowledge and understanding.
Suggested Readings: “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young
  1. Palmer, Anthony. “Philosophy and Literature.” Philosophy, vol. 65, no. 252, 1990, pp. 155–66. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751385. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  2. Voice, Paul. “Why Literature Cannot Be Moral Philosophy.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 83/84, 1994, pp. 123–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802646. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  3. Thiher, Allen. “A Theory of Literature or Recent Literature as Theory.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 29, no. 3, 1988, pp. 337–50. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1208451. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  4. Wheater, Isabella. “Literature and Philosophy: Emotion and Knowledge?” Philosophy, vol. 79, no. 308, 2004, pp. 215–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751972. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.

“How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro: Summary and Critique

“How Literary Can Literariness Be?” by Massimo Salgaro first appeared in Scientific Study of Literature, volume 5, issue 2, in 2015, spanning pages 229–249 (doi: 10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal).

"How Literary Can Literariness Be?" By Massimo Salgaro: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

“How Literary Can Literariness Be?” by Massimo Salgaro first appeared in Scientific Study of Literature, volume 5, issue 2, in 2015, spanning pages 229–249 (doi: 10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal). The article explores the methodological complexities inherent in studying “literariness,” particularly through the lens of foregrounding and its impact on readers’ cognitive and aesthetic engagement. Drawing on Roman Jakobson’s foundational concept of “literariness,” Salgaro interrogates how foregrounded linguistic elements, such as rhetorical figures, influence text processing under different genre expectations. The study employs experimental methods to examine how readers interpret texts presented as literary versus non-literary, revealing that genre perception significantly affects reading dynamics, such as attention to rhetorical features and lexical difficulty. Salgaro’s work underscores the interplay of textual features, cognitive schemas, and reader expectations, contributing to debates in literary theory about the nature of aesthetic experience. The study holds significant implications for understanding the cognitive and emotional mechanisms underpinning literary reading and broadens the methodological frameworks used in empirical aesthetics and literary criticism.

Summary of “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

1. Definition of Literariness and Foregrounding

  • Literariness is traditionally understood as a defining feature of literary texts, characterized by stylistic elements that distinguish them from everyday language (Jakobson, 1987; Shklovsky, 1917).
  • Foregrounding involves the use of rhetorical and linguistic deviations to elicit defamiliarization, challenging habitual patterns of perception (Mukarovský, 1932; Miall & Kuiken, 1994).

2. Debate on Literariness

  • Two contrasting approaches dominate: the “textual features” perspective (e.g., Jakobson, Shklovsky) and the “reader-response” perspective, focusing on cognitive and contextual factors influencing perception (Miall & Kuiken, 1998; Fish, 1980).
  • Recent studies emphasize that both textual elements and reader expectations shape the literary experience (Zwaan, 1991, 1994).

3. Experiment 1: Genre Expectations and Reading Times

  • Participants read sentences framed as either literary or journalistic, with varying degrees of foregrounding (rhetorical figures like oxymora, synesthesia).
  • Findings revealed that genre expectations affect reading times, with rhetorical figures slowing reading more in the “news” context than the “literary” context (Salgaro, 2015).
  • Foregrounding acts as a “lexical challenge,” especially for low-frequency or semantically complex words.

4. Experiment 2: Semantic Distance and Rhetorical Figures

  • Evaluated the semantic distance between paired terms in rhetorical figures (e.g., “black milk” vs. “white milk”).
  • Greater semantic distance (e.g., in synesthesia and personification) correlates with more significant cognitive challenges (Salgaro, 2015).
  • Conflicting results highlighted the limitations of isolating foregrounding effects without considering contextual “backgrounding.”

5. Critique of Foregrounding-Only Models

  • Literariness emerges from the interplay between foregrounding and backgrounding, balancing defamiliarization with narrative and emotional coherence (van Peer et al., 2007).
  • Cognitive processes involved in literary reading are influenced by both top-down (reader expectations) and bottom-up (textual features) mechanisms (Jacobs, 2013).

6. Methodological Innovations

  • Introduced micro-level analyses of lexical deviations, contrasting “determinate” and “statistical” deviations in foregrounding studies (Levin, 1963).
  • Highlighted the importance of naturalistic contexts in empirical studies of literariness, advocating for integrative neurocognitive models (Jacobs, 2013).

7. Implications for Literary Theory and Empirical Aesthetics

  • Literariness is a multifaceted phenomenon involving textual, contextual, and cognitive elements.
  • Further research should explore how backgrounding complements foregrounding in literary texts and how these dynamics affect the reader’s aesthetic and cognitive experience (Salgaro, 2015).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro
Term/ConceptDefinition/ExplanationKey References
LiterarinessThe quality that makes a text distinctly “literary,” often linked to stylistic and rhetorical features.Jakobson (1987), Shklovsky (1917), Mukarovský (1932)
ForegroundingThe use of stylistic and linguistic features to defamiliarize, making readers notice elements of a text.Miall & Kuiken (1994), Mukarovský (1932)
DefamiliarizationA process by which habitual perceptions are disrupted through novel or unexpected uses of language.Shklovsky (1917), Mukarovský (1932)
BackgroundingElements in a text that connect to familiar schemata, allowing for narrative coherence and emotional resonance.Jacobs (2013), Kneepkens & Zwaan (1994)
Reader Response TheoryA framework focusing on the reader’s role in interpreting texts based on personal and contextual factors.Fish (1980), Jauss (1967), Iser (1976)
Schema TheoryThe idea that literature disrupts and refreshes mental schemata, enabling new experiences for readers.Jauss (1967), Iser (1976), Stockwell (2002)
Genre ExpectationsReaders’ preconceptions about a text’s genre, influencing how they process and interpret it.Zwaan (1991, 1994), Hoffstaedter (1986)
Lexical ChallengeCognitive effort required to process statistically rare or complex lexical items in a text.Levin (1963), Miall & Kuiken (1994)
Cognitive Control MechanismsProcesses guiding how textual features are interpreted, influenced by genre and reader expertise.Zwaan (1994), Jacobs (2013)
Statistical DeviationA linguistic feature that deviates statistically from the norm within a language or genre.Levin (1963), van Peer (1986)
Determinate DeviationA clear violation of grammatical, poetic, or cultural conventions within a given context.Levin (1963), Salgaro (2015)
Neurocognitive PoeticsA model of literary reading that emphasizes dual-route processing: fast, automatic immersion and slower, aesthetic processing.Jacobs (2013), Lüdtke et al. (2014)
Pragmatic Concept of LiteratureAn approach that considers literature as defined by its function and reception, rather than intrinsic features.Winko, Jannidis, & Lauer (2009)
Ecological ValidityThe need for experimental studies to mimic naturalistic reading conditions to capture genuine literary experiences.Dimigen et al. (2011), Salgaro (2015)
Contribution of “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro to Literary Theory/Theories
  • Russian Formalism
    • Reinforces the concept of literariness as a distinctive characteristic of literary texts, primarily defined through foregrounding and defamiliarization.
    • Expands the Formalist idea that literary language disrupts conventional patterns to enable deeper engagement.
    • References: Shklovsky (1917), Jakobson (1987), Levin (1963).
  • Reader Response Theory
    • Emphasizes the dynamic interaction between reader expectations and textual features in shaping the perception of literariness.
    • Demonstrates how genre expectations influence cognitive processing, supporting theories of reader-based interpretation.
    • References: Iser (1976), Jauss (1967), Zwaan (1991, 1994).
  • Schema Theory
    • Applies schema theory to literary reading, showing how literary texts disrupt and refresh cognitive frameworks through processes of defamiliarization and refamiliarization.
    • Highlights the role of backgrounding in complementing foregrounding to create schema disruptions.
    • References: Stockwell (2002), Miall & Kuiken (1998).
  • Empirical Aesthetics
    • Introduces experimental methodologies to test cognitive and emotional responses to foregrounded textual features like rhetorical figures.
    • Challenges earlier unitary conceptions of literariness, proposing that it emerges from a combination of textual and reader-based factors.
    • References: Altmann et al. (2012), Miall & Kuiken (1994), van Peer (1986).
  • Neurocognitive Poetics
    • Aligns with neurocognitive models of reading, highlighting dual processing routes—fast immersive processes for backgrounding and slower, aesthetic engagement with foregrounding.
    • References: Jacobs (2011, 2013), Lüdtke et al. (2014).
  • Pragmatic Literary Theory
    • Advocates for a pragmatic approach to literature that integrates both text-oriented and reader-oriented perspectives across diverse contexts.
    • Supports the idea that literariness is a multifaceted phenomenon rather than a fixed textual property.
    • References: Winko, Jannidis, & Lauer (2009).
  • Cognitive Linguistics and Deviation Theory
    • Examines linguistic deviation at a micro-level (e.g., statistical rarity of words) to assess how foregrounding challenges lexical processing.
    • Contributes to understanding how deviations at lexical and semantic levels impact literary cognition.
    • References: Levin (1963), Sanford & Emmott (2012).
  • Experimental Stylistics
    • Validates the role of rhetorical figures like oxymora and synaesthesia in slowing reading and increasing cognitive engagement.
    • Explores the influence of micro-level textual elements on comprehension and memory.
    • References: Miall & Kuiken (1994), van Peer & Hakemulder (2006).
  • Aesthetic and Emotional Engagement
    • Discusses how foregrounding elicits aesthetic and emotional reactions, bridging defamiliarization (surprise) and refamiliarization (integration).
    • References: Kneepkens & Zwaan (1994), Miall & Kuiken (1999).
Examples of Critiques Through “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro
Literary WorkTheory AppliedCritical Analysis
Ulysses by James JoyceForegrounding and DefamiliarizationJoyce’s use of complex narrative techniques and unconventional language creates foregrounding that disrupts conventional schemas, requiring readers to engage in defamiliarization and cognitive realignment (Miall & Kuiken, 1998).
The Old Man and the Sea by HemingwayBackgrounding and Foregrounding InteractionHemingway’s minimalist style serves as backgrounding, while rare descriptive elements (e.g., “gaunt with deep wrinkles”) foreground key narrative moments, engaging both aesthetic and empathetic responses (Jacobs, 2013).
The Metamorphosis by KafkaSchema Disruption and RefreshmentKafka disrupts reader expectations through the absurd premise (Gregor’s transformation), leading to schema renewal and reflection on existential themes, consistent with schema theory (Stockwell, 2002).
A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee WilliamsLexical and Rhetorical ForegroundingThe play’s use of figurative language, such as Blanche’s poetic monologues, slows comprehension, enhancing emotional and aesthetic engagement through rhetorical foregrounding (van Peer, 1986).
Pale Fire by Vladimir NabokovGenre Expectations and Reader ResponseNabokov manipulates genre expectations by blending fictional commentary and poetry, prompting readers to shift cognitive frames and question literariness itself (Zwaan, 1994).
Paradise Lost by John MiltonCognitive and Emotional Dual ProcessingMilton’s epic evokes immersive backgrounding through its narrative structure and aesthetic foregrounding via rich rhetorical devices (e.g., epic similes), engaging both fast and slow cognitive routes (Jacobs, 2011).
Leaves of Grass by Walt WhitmanStatistical Deviation and Lexical RarityWhitman’s repetition of uncommon word patterns and distinctive typography foreground his free verse style, exemplifying statistical deviation in poetic language (Levin, 1963).
Beloved by Toni MorrisonForegrounding Emotional and Cognitive ChallengesMorrison’s complex narrative structure and dense metaphorical language foreground emotional and psychological themes, demanding slower, deeper engagement from readers (Miall & Kuiken, 1994).
1984 by George OrwellDefamiliarization of Political LanguageOrwell’s use of Newspeak and dystopian settings defamiliarizes readers with political language, enhancing critical reflection on societal norms through linguistic and narrative deviation (van Peer, Hakemulder & Zygnier, 2007).
Criticism Against “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro
  • Limited Scope of Foregrounding Analysis
    The study’s focus on isolated sentences in self-paced reading experiments neglects the holistic context of literary works, where foregrounding interacts with backgrounding to produce meaning. This narrow scope reduces ecological validity.
  • Overemphasis on Statistical Deviation
    The reliance on statistical deviation as a measure of literariness may oversimplify the complexity of literary language and ignore the interplay of cultural, historical, and thematic contexts that influence literary appreciation.
  • Neglect of Macro-Level Literary Structures
    The micro-level focus on lexical rarity and rhetorical figures does not address how larger narrative structures and themes contribute to the overall literariness of a text, limiting the applicability to comprehensive literary critique.
  • Inconsistent Experimental Findings
    The conflicting results between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 highlight methodological issues in replicating the effects of foregrounding, raising questions about the reliability of the study’s conclusions.
  • Reductionist Approach to Reader Response
    The cognitive model of reader response focuses on measurable linguistic and lexical elements but overlooks the subjective, emotional, and cultural factors that significantly impact literary reading experiences.
  • Dependence on Laboratory Settings
    The artificiality of laboratory-based, word-by-word reading procedures does not reflect natural reading habits, potentially distorting how literariness and foregrounding operate in real-world contexts.
  • Limited Exploration of Genre Diversity
    The experiments predominantly focus on literary versus non-literary texts without addressing how different literary genres (e.g., poetry, drama, prose) may uniquely employ foregrounding and backgrounding.
  • Insufficient Integration of Historical Literary Theory
    While the study references key theorists (e.g., Jakobson, Shklovsky), it does not thoroughly integrate historical insights into its empirical framework, potentially leading to a fragmented understanding of literariness.
  • Minimal Engagement with Reader Expertise
    The study does not sufficiently account for how a reader’s literary expertise, cultural background, or reading habits influence their perception of foregrounding and genre expectations.
Representative Quotations from “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“Literariness cannot be considered a textual feature only, but is rather the effect of a multifaceted process integrating textual features and cognitive operations.” (p. 245)Highlights the complexity of literariness as a dynamic interplay between text characteristics and reader cognition, challenging the notion of a fixed definition for literariness.
“Foregrounding induces not only deeper language processing but also extended emotional and psychological change.” (p. 234)Suggests that foregrounded elements in texts can enhance cognitive engagement and provoke profound emotional reactions, supporting their role in distinguishing literary texts from non-literary ones.
“The defamiliarization effect of foregrounding elements does not work in isolation; it requires the presence of backgrounding elements.” (p. 243)Emphasizes that both foregrounding and backgrounding are essential for creating literary effects, as foregrounding gains significance only when contrasted against a norm or contextual background.
“Genre expectations influence how texts are processed, demonstrating that literariness also involves top-down cognitive processes.” (p. 237)Indicates that readers’ preconceived notions about a text’s genre affect their reading strategies, further blurring the line between intrinsic textual features and reader perceptions in defining literariness.
“The attempt to study foregrounding statistically is a methodological challenge, as deviation depends on the specific context in which it is observed.” (p. 243)Acknowledges the difficulty in quantifying foregrounding, as its effect is context-dependent, necessitating nuanced experimental approaches to study its role in literariness.
“Slowed reading times for foregrounded elements indicate cognitive challenge and heightened attention, characteristics of literary processing.” (p. 239)Suggests that the slowed processing of foregrounded linguistic features signals the reader’s deeper engagement with literary texts, distinguishing them from mundane reading experiences.
“Statistical rarity of words contributes to the literary effect, but it must be analyzed within micro- and macro-contexts.” (p. 240)Proposes that linguistic deviation contributes to literariness but insists on examining how these rare elements interact with broader textual and thematic structures.
“Literary language provides occasion for dehabituation, for contemplating alternative modes of experience.” (p. 230)Echoes the Russian Formalist idea that literary texts disrupt habitual ways of thinking, offering readers opportunities for fresh perspectives and experiences.
“Refamiliarization is an integral part of literariness, as it integrates the defamiliarized text into the reader’s existing cognitive frameworks.” (p. 238)Highlights the cyclical nature of literary reading, where readers process and reconcile unfamiliar elements within their pre-existing knowledge and expectations.
“Empirical studies show that foregrounded elements elicit surprise and require longer reading times, affirming their role in cognitive and aesthetic literary experiences.” (p. 233)Validates the significance of foregrounding in eliciting cognitive and emotional engagement, substantiating its importance in empirical investigations of literariness.
Suggested Readings: “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro
  1. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  2. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  3. Merrett, Robert James. “Literariness: Aesthetic and Cultural Dialectic.” Imperial Paradoxes: Training the Senses and Tasting the Eighteenth Century, vol. 83, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021, pp. 79–113. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1xp9pnm.6. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
  4. Salgaro, Massimo. “How literary can literariness be? Methodological problems in the study of foregrounding.” Scientific Study of Literature 5.2 (2015): 229-249.