Tag: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi

“Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi, first appeared in 1992 in the Journal of Gender Studies, explores the concept of femininity through the lens of feminist literary theory, engaging with thinkers like Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, and Jacques Lacan. Moi critiques the essentialist and sometimes ahistorical tendencies of feminist theories that align femininity with particular biological or cultural markers, emphasizing the importance of analyzing femininity as a construct shaped by patriarchal systems. She evaluates competing feminist approaches, such as Irigaray’s advocacy for a distinct feminine signification system versus Kristeva’s psychoanalytic interpretations, and underscores the necessity of situating such theories within broader socio-political contexts. The article’s significance lies in its rigorous critique and its call for a feminism that transcends restrictive notions of femininity, making it a landmark contribution to feminist theory and literary criticism.

Summary of “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi

• Critique of Essentialist Feminism:
  Toril Moi critiques essentialist feminist theories that align femininity with fixed biological or symbolic characteristics. She challenges Luce Irigaray and Elizabeth Grosz’s proposal of an autonomous feminine signification system, arguing that such ideas are inherently restrictive and risk becoming “ahistorical” frameworks (Moi, 326). Moi emphasizes that femininity must be understood as a construct shaped by patriarchal systems and historical contexts rather than an intrinsic or essential quality.
• Comparison of Theoretical Perspectives:
  Moi contrasts Luce Irigaray’s assertion that language is fundamentally “phallocentric” and thus necessitates a separate feminine economy of signification with Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic perspective, which sees Lacan’s theory of the phallus as a non-gendered, structural absence. According to Moi, Irigaray’s interpretation assumes the phallus “represents the penis,” while Kristeva and others argue it signifies a “transcendental” concept of difference that both genders relate to but cannot fully embody (Moi, 326-327). Moi critiques Grosz for presenting feminism almost exclusively through an Irigarayan lens, a move that risks “closing down debates that need to be opened up” (Moi, 326).
• Rejection of Restrictive Feminine Ideals:
  Moi strongly critiques Irigaray and Hélène Cixous for advancing notions of femininity that impose restrictive frameworks. She finds Irigaray’s biologically influenced metaphors, such as the “two lips,” to be reductive and argues that they force femininity into rigid forms (Moi, 329). Similarly, she critiques écriture féminine for advocating an aesthetic ideal rooted in specific cultural and historical contexts, questioning its accessibility and relevance. Moi asserts that such frameworks risk reinforcing patriarchal ideas rather than dismantling them, stating that “femininity is a patriarchal problem” and should not become a feminist question (Moi, 334).
• Femininity as a Patriarchal Problem:
  The article emphasizes that femininity is a construct designed to perpetuate patriarchal systems rather than an inherent identity. Moi calls for feminist theory to move beyond debates over femininity, focusing instead on dismantling the structural inequalities that shape women’s lives. She argues, “Feminists must therefore be able to analyse the phenomenon more persuasively than any patriarch could ever do” (Moi, 334). For Moi, the feminist project should prioritize inclusivity and equity rather than adhering to prescriptive ideals of femininity.
• Interdisciplinary Approach to Feminism:
  Moi concludes by advocating for an integration of psychoanalytic theories with socio-political analysis, critiquing écriture féminine for failing to engage with the material realities of women’s lives. She states, “Such analyses must be integrated with the study of the specific social, political and economic determinants of women’s lives and texts” (Moi, 333). While acknowledging the insights psychoanalysis offers, Moi urges feminists to ground their theories in historical and social contexts to create a more inclusive and impactful feminist praxis.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context in the Article
Femininity	A construct shaped by patriarchal systems, historically and socially contingent, rather than an inherent or essential quality.	Critiqued as a patriarchal problem; Moi calls for its analysis rather than its acceptance as a feminist category (Moi, 334).
Phallocentrism	The idea that language and culture are centered around the phallus as a symbol of difference and authority.	Irigaray critiques it as inherently oppressive; Moi explores alternative feminist engagements with this concept (Moi, 326).
The Phallus	A Lacanian concept signifying the primary marker of sexual difference, transcendent and unattainable by either sex.	Differently interpreted by feminists like Irigaray (as the penis) and Kristeva (as a structural absence) (Moi, 326-327).
Écriture Féminine	A style of writing emphasizing fluidity, openness, and embodied experience, often associated with Hélène Cixous.	Moi critiques it for being idealistic and ahistorical, limiting its relevance to broader feminist praxis (Moi, 329-333).
Autonomous Signification	Irigaray’s proposal for a feminine system of meaning that exists independently of the phallocentric symbolic order.	Moi critiques this as biologically reductive and reliant on essentialist assumptions (Moi, 327-329).
Empty vs. Full Difference	Lacan’s notion of sexual difference as structurally “empty” (without fixed meaning) vs. Irigaray’s “full” (biological) view.	Moi advocates for the former as more adaptable to feminist critiques of sexual difference (Moi, 328).
Strategic Essentialism	The deliberate use of essentialist arguments to achieve political aims, particularly in feminist theory.	Irigaray’s approach is discussed as strategically essentialist; Moi critiques its limitations (Moi, 326-327).
Psychoanalysis in Feminism	The application of psychoanalytic theories to understand sexual difference and subjectivity.	Moi urges integrating psychoanalysis with socio-political analysis for feminist theory (Moi, 333).
Patriarchal Construct	A system of values and meanings imposed by patriarchal authority to sustain gender hierarchies.	Femininity is framed as a patriarchal construct, not inherently feminist (Moi, 334).
Gender and Symbolic Order	The organization of social and cultural meaning based on binary gender roles and phallocentric language.	Moi critiques Irigaray’s approach for failing to engage with broader social and political implications (Moi, 327-329).

Contribution of “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories

• Deconstruction of Essentialist Feminist Theories:
  Moi critiques the essentialist underpinnings of theories like those of Luce Irigaray, emphasizing that femininity is a socially constructed concept rather than an innate quality. This challenges essentialist feminist interpretations in literary and cultural theory, pushing for a historically grounded understanding of gender constructs (Moi, 326-328).
• Critique of Phallocentrism and Psychoanalytic Feminism:
  Moi engages with Lacan’s concept of the phallus and feminist critiques of psychoanalysis. By differentiating between Lacan’s “empty” and “full” signification of sexual difference, Moi highlights the importance of understanding gender in terms of structural absence rather than biological determinism, contributing to feminist psychoanalytic approaches (Moi, 326-327).
• Analysis of Écriture Féminine:
  Moi critiques Hélène Cixous’s concept of écriture féminine as overly idealistic and tied to specific aesthetic and cultural contexts. Her argument that feminine writing risks perpetuating exclusionary ideals expands literary theory’s understanding of gendered textual practices (Moi, 329-333).
• Interdisciplinary Integration in Feminist Theory:
  The article calls for integrating psychoanalytic insights with socio-political and historical analyses to address the broader determinants of women’s lives and texts. This interdisciplinary approach contributes to feminist literary theory by bridging gaps between psychoanalysis, history, and politics (Moi, 333).
• Challenging the Canonization of Feminist Thinkers:
  Moi critiques the tendency to valorize certain feminist theorists (e.g., Irigaray) while dismissing others (e.g., Kristeva). This challenges literary theory to adopt more inclusive and balanced evaluations of feminist contributions (Moi, 326).
• Reframing Femininity as a Patriarchal Construct:
  Moi positions femininity not as a feminist question but as a patriarchal problem requiring critical analysis. This reframing influences literary theory by encouraging scholars to deconstruct gendered constructs in texts and cultural representations (Moi, 334).
• Feminism Beyond Textual Practices:
  By critiquing the focus on textual and aesthetic ideals (e.g., écriture féminine), Moi advocates for feminist theories that prioritize broader social and political transformations, enriching feminist literary criticism with a focus on structural change (Moi, 334).

Examples of Critiques Through “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi

Literary Work	Key Themes in the Work	Critique Through “Femininity Revisited”
Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex	Existentialist feminism; equality between sexes; critique of gender roles.	Moi aligns more with Beauvoir’s approach, advocating for social, political, and economic equality over restrictive ideals of femininity (Moi, 334).
Hélène Cixous’s The Laugh of the Medusa	Advocacy for écriture féminine; celebration of feminine writing and difference.	Moi critiques Cixous’s idealization of feminine writing as overly romantic and rooted in a specific cultural aesthetic, limiting its universal applicability (Moi, 329-333).
Julia Kristeva’s Revolution in Poetic Language	Psychoanalytic theory of the semiotic; maternal influences on language and creativity.	Moi defends Kristeva’s view of sexual difference as structurally empty and critiques Grosz’s reduction of Kristeva’s work to patriarchal compliance (Moi, 326-328).
Elizabeth Grosz’s Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction	Feminist critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis; alignment with Irigaray.	Moi criticizes Grosz’s uncritical reliance on Irigarayan feminism, arguing that it oversimplifies Lacan’s theories and stifles debates by conflating feminism with one perspective (Moi, 326-327).

Criticism Against “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi

• Lack of Practical Solutions for Feminist Praxis:
  Critics argue that while Moi deconstructs essentialist feminist theories and critiques concepts like écriture féminine, she offers limited guidance on how to integrate her proposed interdisciplinary approach into practical feminist activism.
• Potential Undermining of Feminist Solidarity:
  Moi’s critique of influential feminist theorists like Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous has been seen as divisive. Some argue that her focus on exposing flaws in their theories may detract from the broader feminist goal of collective action against patriarchy.
• Insufficient Engagement with Marginalized Perspectives:
  Moi’s focus on psychoanalytic and Western feminist theories has been critiqued for marginalizing non-Western and intersectional feminist perspectives, which could provide richer and more diverse analyses of femininity.
• Overemphasis on Psychoanalysis:
  Some critics believe Moi places excessive emphasis on psychoanalytic theories, which may alienate feminists who question the relevance or utility of psychoanalysis in addressing contemporary feminist concerns.
• Abstract and Theoretical Approach:
  Moi’s critique of concepts like phallocentrism and écriture féminine has been described as overly theoretical, making it difficult for readers without a background in psychoanalysis or literary theory to fully engage with her arguments.
• Dismissal of Écriture Féminine as Ahistorical:
  Moi’s characterization of écriture féminine as overly idealistic and rooted in specific cultural contexts has been critiqued for underestimating its potential to inspire new forms of feminist expression and creativity.
• Rejection of Feminine Writing as a Political Tool:
  Moi’s critique of Cixous’s écriture féminine has been seen as dismissive of its potential as a strategic tool for subverting patriarchal language and power structures.

Representative Quotations from “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation	Theoretical Perspective
“Femininity is a patriarchal problem. Feminists must therefore be able to analyse the phenomenon more persuasively than any patriarch could ever do.” (Moi, 334)	Moi argues that femininity is not a feminist issue but a construct of patriarchy, needing deconstruction rather than adoption.	Feminist critique of essentialism and patriarchal constructs.
“Irigaray’s call for equality between the sexes presupposes the establishment of what one might call ‘full’ difference, as opposed to the ’empty’ difference advocated by a Juliet Mitchell or a Julia Kristeva.” (Moi, 327)	Moi contrasts Irigaray’s biologically grounded view of sexual difference with Kristeva’s more abstract and structural approach.	Psychoanalytic feminism; critique of essentialist theories of difference.
“Irigaray’s vision of a feminine structure of signification risks reducing femininity to an anatomical metaphor, such as substituting the two lips for the penis.” (Moi, 329)	Moi critiques Irigaray’s reliance on biological metaphors, arguing that it limits feminist theory to essentialist frameworks.	Feminist literary theory critique; rejection of biologically essentialist metaphors.
“Écriture féminine… shows no interest at all in the specific social, political, and economic determinants of women’s lives.” (Moi, 333)	Moi critiques Cixous’s feminine writing as overly idealistic and disconnected from material realities.	Critique of écriture féminine; integration of socio-political and materialist feminist analysis.
“Feminists like Julia Kristeva argue that Lacan’s theory of the phallus implies that neither sex can ever fully possess or embody the phallus.” (Moi, 326)	Moi highlights Kristeva’s non-essentialist interpretation of the phallus as an abstract signifier, challenging phallocentric ideas.	Psychoanalytic feminism; structural interpretation of sexual difference.
“Why should feminism remain faithful to the patriarchal project of gendering the world?” (Moi, 332)	Moi questions the binary constructions of masculinity and femininity and their imposition in feminist theory.	Feminist critique of binary gender constructs.
“Grosz’s unspoken reliance on Irigaray’s authority conceals the gaps separating various strands of contemporary feminism and ultimately closes down debates that need to be opened up.” (Moi, 326)	Moi critiques Elizabeth Grosz’s approach as overly reliant on Irigarayan feminism, limiting critical debate within the field.	Critique of feminist exclusivity; call for broader, interdisciplinary feminist dialogue.
“No specific ‘meaning’ of difference can be posited a priori; in different historical and social situations, the ’empty’ category of difference will be filled with vastly different material.” (Moi, 328)	Moi argues for a historically and contextually grounded understanding of sexual difference, rejecting fixed or universal meanings.	Historical materialism in feminist theory; critique of ahistoricism.
“The notion of femininity, as an ideal, risks excluding women who do not or cannot conform to its aesthetic or cultural expectations.” (Moi, 329)	Moi critiques the exclusivity inherent in concepts like écriture féminine, which may marginalize women outside specific contexts.	Feminist inclusivity; critique of restrictive ideals of femininity.
“In my view, Simone de Beauvoir’s vision of a society in which every woman and every man has equal access… provides a better starting point for the liberation of all women than Cixous’s libidinal economies.” (Moi, 333)	Moi contrasts Beauvoir’s practical approach to liberation with Cixous’s aesthetic idealism, favoring the former for feminist progress.	Existential feminism versus écriture féminine; prioritizing socio-political over aesthetic strategies.

Suggested Readings: “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi

1. Soussloff, Catherine M., and Bill Nichols. “Leni Riefenstahl: The Power of the Image.” Discourse, vol. 18, no. 3, 1996, pp. 20–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389418. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
2. Moi, Toril. “Femininity revisited.” Journal of Gender Studies 1.3 (1992): 324-334.
3. Moi, Toril. “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style: Recent Feminist Criticism in the United States.” Cultural Critique, no. 9, 1988, pp. 3–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354232. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
4. Moi, Toril. “Representation of Patriarchy: Sexuality and Epistemology in Freud’s ‘Dora.’” Feminist Review, no. 9, 1981, pp. 60–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394915. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

“Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History journal, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Winter, 2007), published by the Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal essay, Culler explores the perennial question of “What is literature?” and its evolving significance in contemporary literary theory. He critiques the varied theoretical approaches that attempt to define literature, including functionalist and structuralist perspectives, while emphasizing the cultural and interpretive frameworks that assign literary status to texts. Culler posits that the essence of literature is not bound to objective properties but is shaped by how texts are read and contextualized within cultural discourses. The essay also reflects on the historical and philosophical dimensions of literature, challenging reductive views that restrict its transformative and imaginative potential. By engaging with other critical voices, such as Tzvetan Todorov and Charles Altieri, Culler’s work underscores literature’s role as a dynamic medium for cultural dialogue, aesthetic exploration, and self-construction, making it a cornerstone for understanding the fluid boundaries of literariness in the 21st century.

Summary of “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

1. The Question of “What is Literature?”: Culler examines how defining literature often involves either exploring its societal functions or identifying intrinsic features. Neither approach yields a definitive or universal answer (Culler, 2007, p. 229).
2. Societal Role of Literature: Literature can establish or challenge cultural norms, moral values, and societal ideologies, but these functions are not exclusive to literature, as other cultural forms can perform similar roles (p. 230).
3. Defining Literary Characteristics: Features like fictionality, non-instrumental language, and intertextuality are often cited as defining traits, but these qualities are not unique to literature (p. 230).
4. Literariness as a Cultural Construct: Culler emphasizes that literature gains its status through cultural and interpretive frames, likening it to how weeds are defined by social contexts rather than objective properties (p. 231).
5. Theoretical Debates on Literariness: Referencing Tzvetan Todorov, Culler notes the inability of structural approaches to define literature, highlighting the absence of a single essential feature that distinguishes it (p. 231).
6. Interpretive Approaches to Literature: Culler points out that the question “What is literature?” is often used to promote specific critical methodologies, such as mimesis (focusing on representation) or the foregrounding of language (p. 232).
7. The Contemporary Lens: The addition of “now” in the question reflects shifts in critical theory and media. Scholars like Charles Altieri and Terry Cochran argue for attention to sensuousness and invention in literary experiences, countering institutionalized approaches (pp. 233-234).
8. Temporal and Transformative Nature: Laurent Dubreuil highlights literature’s unique temporality, interacting with past, present, and future while continuously being reinvented (p. 234).
9. Globalization and Media’s Impact: Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore how globalization and new media have transformed literature’s role, with Hayles discussing electronic literature as a continuation and expansion of traditional literary functions (pp. 236-237).
10. Literature and Selfhood: Despite changes, Culler reaffirms literature’s enduring role in shaping selfhood and cultural dialogues, even as its forms evolve (p. 237).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference/Context
Literariness	The quality that makes a text “literary,” often linked to cultural and interpretive frameworks.	Literature is defined not by intrinsic properties but by how it is culturally and historically framed (p. 230).
Mimesis	The representation of reality in literature, focusing on human actions and fictionalization.	Often cited as a defining aspect of literature, emphasizing its capacity for representation (p. 232).
Foregrounding of Language	A focus on language’s structure and aesthetics rather than its utilitarian function.	Critics advocating for this view prioritize the linguistic patterns and artistic features of texts (p. 232).
Intertextuality	The dependent and transformative relationship between a text and other literary works.	Literary works are seen as existing within a network of references to and transformations of other texts (p. 230).
Functional Approach	Examines what literature does in a society, such as shaping culture, ideology, or moral values.	Literature’s societal roles include nation-building and challenging ideology but overlap with other forms (p. 229).
Structural Approach	Attempts to identify intrinsic, defining features of literature.	Tzvetan Todorov critiques this approach, arguing it fails to identify a unique literary essence (p. 231).
Cultural Constructivism	The idea that literature is defined by cultural and historical contexts rather than inherent traits.	Culler compares literature to weeds, emphasizing its context-dependent classification (p. 231).
Temporal Complexity	Literature interacts with multiple temporalities (past, present, future) in its creation and reception.	Laurent Dubreuil’s concept of literature’s “now” emphasizes its temporal and interpretive dimensions (p. 234).
Relational Aesthetic Experience	The role of literature in shaping selfhood through imaginative and interpretive acts.	Garry Hagberg sees literature as instrumental in constructing individual identity (p. 231).
Globalization and Media Shifts	Literature’s role is transformed by globalization and new media technologies.	Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore how new media redefine literature’s form and cultural functions (pp. 236-237).
Deconstruction	A critical approach questioning stable meanings and highlighting textual self-reflexivity.	Culler discusses critiques of deconstruction for allegedly reducing literature to incoherence (p. 233).
Dynamic Heterarchies	Interactions between different levels of textual engagement in electronic literature.	Katherine Hayles examines how computational texts interact with readers and devices (p. 236).
Rhetorical Transaction	Literature as a communicative act between text and reader, emphasizing engagement.	Jan Swearingen critiques cultural approaches that ignore the reader’s role (p. 233).

Contribution of “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

• Expanding the Concept of Literariness:
  • Culler highlights that literariness is not confined to inherent textual features but emerges from cultural and interpretive practices (p. 230).
  • This challenges essentialist notions of literature and aligns with post-structuralist approaches, emphasizing the role of reader and cultural context.
• Critique of Functionalist and Structuralist Approaches:
  • Functional approaches (literature’s societal roles) and structural approaches (identifying intrinsic qualities) are insufficient to define literature (p. 229).
  • Echoing critiques by theorists like Tzvetan Todorov, Culler questions the utility of seeking definitive features (p. 231).
• Integration of Intertextuality:
  • Culler underscores intertextuality as central to understanding literature, as texts transform and depend on other texts (p. 230).
  • This supports theories by Roland Barthes and Julia Kristeva on the relational nature of texts within cultural systems.
• Temporal Dimensions in Literature:
  • Inspired by Laurent Dubreuil, the essay explores how literature operates across temporalities (past, present, future), complicating historical or teleological definitions (p. 234).
  • This aligns with phenomenological approaches, highlighting literature’s dynamic and ongoing creation through interpretation.
• Revisiting Rhetorical Theory:
  • Culler, through Jan Swearingen’s perspective, revives rhetoric as a lens for understanding literature as a transaction between text and reader (p. 233).
  • This counters cultural materialist views that reduce literature to historical or ideological artifacts.
• Critique of Deconstruction’s Impact:
  • The essay discusses deconstruction’s influence, critiquing its perceived focus on incoherence while acknowledging its role in uncovering textual reflexivity (p. 233).
  • This aligns with broader debates on the limits and potentials of deconstructive readings in literary studies.
• Literature in the Age of Globalization:
  • Contributions by Phillip Wegner and Katherine Hayles explore literature’s transformation in response to new media and globalization (pp. 236-237).
  • This expands the scope of literary theory to include digital and global cultural production, bridging traditional and contemporary texts.
• Reinforcing Literature’s Role in Selfhood:
  • Literature is presented as pivotal in constructing selfhood, drawing on relational aesthetic theories by thinkers like Garry Hagberg (p. 231).
  • This supports humanistic perspectives in literary theory, emphasizing literature’s transformative impact on identity.
• Challenging Nationalistic and Canonical Perspectives:
  • Culler critiques the historical linkage of literature to nationalism, suggesting its evolution towards transnational forms in globalized contexts (p. 236).
  • This aligns with postcolonial and global literary theories that critique Eurocentric and nationalistic biases.
• Affirmation of Literature’s Unpredictable Knowledge:
  • Culler endorses the view that literature generates unpredictable and transformative knowledge, contributing to theories of creativity and innovation (p. 232).
  • This affirms literature as a site of epistemological exploration rather than static representation.

Examples of Critiques Through “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique/Analysis	Reference/Context
Tzvetan Todorov’s “The Notion of Literature”	Critiques the failure of structural approaches to identify defining features of literature, leading to the provocative question: “Does literature exist?”	Culler discusses Todorov’s skepticism about essentialist definitions of literature (p. 231).
George Sand’s Writings	Appreciated for capturing the “innocent pleasure of living for the sake of living,” highlighting literature’s potential for ethical and emotional enrichment.	Discussed as a counterpoint to deconstructive readings that deny literature’s ability to affirm truths (p. 233).
William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition	Explored as an example of how new media and globalization have shifted literature’s cultural and narrative role, emphasizing the persistence of older literary forms.	Culler references Wegner’s analysis of Gibson’s work to examine literature’s interaction with media (p. 236).
Proust’s In Search of Lost Time	Portrayed as anticipating modern forms of expression like blogs, blending personal narrative with artistic reflection, exemplifying a transnational and non-linear temporality.	Gans compares Proust’s narrative style to contemporary blogging, linking it to shifts in literature’s role (p. 237).

Criticism Against “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

1. Lack of Concrete Definition:
   Despite addressing the complexities of defining literature, the essay does not offer a definitive answer, leaving readers with an open-ended and potentially unsatisfying conclusion about what constitutes literature.
2. Overreliance on Cultural Relativism:
   The argument that literature is defined by cultural and interpretive contexts risks reducing its essence to subjective societal constructs, neglecting universal qualities or enduring aesthetic values.
3. Minimal Engagement with Specific Texts:
   While theoretical, the essay often critiques literary frameworks without providing detailed analyses of specific literary works, which might weaken its practical applicability.
4. Underdeveloped Critique of Functionalism and Structuralism:
   The critique of functional and structural approaches does not explore their potential merits or contributions in depth, leading to a dismissal that might seem overly reductive.
5. Complexity in Language and Theoretical Jargon:
   The essay’s dense language and reliance on theoretical terminology may alienate readers not well-versed in literary theory, limiting accessibility to a broader audience.
6. Insufficient Exploration of Global and Non-Western Perspectives:
   While globalization is briefly discussed, the essay focuses predominantly on Western literary traditions, missing opportunities to incorporate diverse global or non-Western viewpoints.
7. Overemphasis on Temporality:
   The discussion on the temporal complexities of literature, while insightful, may overshadow other critical aspects of literary analysis, such as genre or narrative structure.
8. Inadequate Address of Digital Literature’s Distinctiveness:
   The analysis of electronic literature (e.g., Katherine Hayles’s contributions) downplays its potential to redefine literary norms, treating it more as an extension of traditional literature.

Representative Quotations from “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The question ‘What is literature?’ is not, like ‘What is hematite?’ asked out of ignorance.”	Culler highlights that this question arises from a deeper intellectual curiosity rather than a lack of knowledge (p. 229).
“Literariness is not confined to literature but can be studied in historical narratives, philosophical texts, and cultural practices.”	Culler broadens the scope of what can be studied under the umbrella of literary analysis (p. 230).
“Literature is whatever is treated as literature by a given society.”	Emphasizes the cultural constructivist view that literature’s identity is determined by societal norms (p. 231).
“Whether or not the functional notion of literature is legitimate, the structural notion definitely is not.”	Quoting Todorov, Culler critiques structural approaches for failing to define what makes literature unique (p. 231).
“Within the world of literary experience we accomplish acts of comparison that are both interpretive and self-interpretive.”	Literature is seen as a tool for self-construction and relational aesthetic experiences (p. 231).
“The addition of ‘now’ to the question—’What is literature now?’—can encourage responses designed to critique current approaches.”	The temporal framing of the question shifts its focus to contemporary theoretical trends and critiques (p. 232).
“Literature may be the name of a variable cultural function rather than a class defined by distinctive properties of language.”	Culler argues for a dynamic view of literature that resists rigid categorization based on intrinsic features (p. 231).
“Focus on the sensuousness of aesthetic experience is necessary to explain how literature can build intense imaginative engagements.”	Literary value lies in its ability to evoke imaginative and sensuous experiences, countering reductive analyses (p. 233).
“The impossibility of a definition of literature can be seen as one of its characteristics, as it always comes after.”	Laurent Dubreuil’s idea, referenced by Culler, that literature continuously reinvents itself and defies definition (p. 234).
“Electronic literature, like literature tout court, will end up being about the construction of meaning and thus about literature.”	Katherine Hayles’s argument that digital and traditional literature share fundamental goals of meaning-making (p. 236).

Suggested Readings: “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” New Literary History, vol. 38, no. 1, 2007, pp. 229–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057997. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
2. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary.” New Literary History, vol. 6, no. 1, 1974, pp. 219–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468350. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
3. Culler, Jonathan. “In Pursuit of Signs.” Daedalus, vol. 106, no. 4, 1977, pp. 95–111. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024510. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Spring, 1973), published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This seminal essay explores the intersection of structuralism and ideology, addressing the dual nature of ideology as both a tool for deconstructing societal norms and a self-critical framework that acknowledges its own ideological limitations. Culler critiques the structuralist impulse to expose hidden cultural conventions while simultaneously grappling with the infinite regress of examining its own assumptions. The essay underscores the paradox that structuralist methods, aimed at revealing “truth” beneath ideological constructs, inevitably construct their own ideologies. Culler’s work is pivotal in literary theory for its exploration of the constraints and freedoms inherent in structuralist critique, emphasizing the productive tension between the pursuit of analytical rigor and the infinite play of meaning. This argument has profoundly influenced discussions on the methodology and purpose of literary analysis, situating structuralism as both a critique of and participant in ideological systems.

Summary of “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

1. Dual Nature of Ideology in Structuralism
   Culler identifies a dual approach to ideology within structuralism: it functions as a tool for revealing hidden societal norms (demystification) and as a framework to critique itself (Culler 471). Structuralists adopt a Marxist view of ideology as false consciousness, exposing concealed historical roots of dominant ideas. However, self-criticism leads to an infinite regress, as structuralist methods themselves become ideological (Culler 472).
2. Self-Analysis as a Structuralist Goal
   Rather than seeking foundational truths, structuralists turn the act of self-analysis into an end in itself. Inspired by Hegelian dialectics, they prioritize the “play” of constructing and deconstructing theoretical frameworks, rejecting the notion of a definitive theory (Culler 473). This approach, as Julia Kristeva remarks, frames semiotics as inherently self-critical, focusing on the ideological gestures it critiques (Culler 473).
3. Structuralism’s Demystification Mission
   Prominent figures like Barthes, Lévi-Strauss, and Foucault use structuralist analyses to uncover how societal norms and scientific conventions appear “natural” while masking their historical and cultural contingencies (Culler 474). For example, Foucault analyzes the “naturalized” conventions underlying sciences, and Barthes critiques bourgeois norms as ideological constructs (Culler 475).
4. Limitations of a “Science of Literature”
   Structuralist poetics, though insightful, confronts its ideological constraints. Barthes’ vision of a “science of literature,” aiming to uncover how meanings are generated, encounters opposition for its prescriptive nature. Critics argue that literature’s diverse interpretations resist such formal categorization (Culler 476). Structuralism’s reliance on the notion of a stable “sign” as the basis for analysis is undermined by literature’s historical and contingent nature (Culler 476).
5. The Central Problem of Structure
   The concept of “structure” in literary analysis, as highlighted by Derrida, is teleological—it presupposes a purpose or “center” governing meaning (Culler 477). Structural analysis depends on this center, yet granting it privileged status imposes ideological constraints, excluding alternative perspectives and meanings (Culler 478).
6. Infinite Play of Meaning
   Structuralism shifts toward exploring the limitless potential of meaning in texts. Saussure’s theory of language as a system of differences, devoid of intrinsic terms, underscores how meaning arises through relational dynamics rather than fixed definitions (Culler 479). This infinite openness contrasts with traditional approaches that impose restrictive interpretative boundaries (Culler 480).
7. Challenges in Interpretation
   Although structuralism promotes the freedom to create meaning, it faces practical constraints. As Derrida and Foucault observe, the production of meaning is simultaneously governed by restrictive conventions, which limit interpretative possibilities (Culler 481). Attempts to eliminate ideological constraints inadvertently impose new ones, highlighting the impossibility of true liberation from ideology (Culler 482).
8. Embracing Ideological Constraints
   Culler concludes that instead of seeking to transcend ideology, scholars should engage with it critically. Both the conventions analyzed and the tools of analysis are embedded within cultural systems. Structuralism, despite its circularity, remains a vital framework for understanding the interplay between ideology and meaning in literature (Culler 482).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference in Text
Ideology as False Consciousness	A Marxist concept used by structuralists to describe how ideologies conceal historical origins and justify societal norms as natural or inevitable.	Culler, p. 471
Self-Critique in Structuralism	Structuralism’s practice of examining its own assumptions to avoid being labeled as ideological, leading to an infinite regress of self-analysis.	Culler, p. 472
Demystification	The process of exposing concealed conventions and ideologies within cultural practices and texts.	Culler, p. 474
Science of Literature	Barthes’ proposal of a systematic method to uncover how meanings in literature are generated according to symbolic and cultural logics.	Culler, p. 475
The Center in Structure	A fixed principle or endpoint that governs the structure of a text, shaping its interpretation and limiting the play of meanings.	Culler, p. 477
Infinite Play of Meaning	Structuralist acknowledgment of the endless relational possibilities in language and literature, rejecting fixed interpretations or absolute truths.	Culler, p. 479
Geno-Text vs. Pheno-Text	Kristeva’s distinction between the geno-text (potential and latent signifying possibilities) and pheno-text (actual realized meanings in a text).	Culler, p. 477
Logocentrism	Derrida’s term for a metaphysical bias that privileges a fixed center or ultimate truth in language, which structuralism challenges by emphasizing relational differences.	Culler, p. 477
Autotelic Development	The idea that structuralism values its own self-reflective processes and theoretical evolution over achieving definitive conclusions or solutions.	Culler, p. 473
Interpretation as Active Creation	Structuralism’s view of interpretation as an active engagement with texts, focusing on the generation of new meanings rather than recovering a pre-existing truth.	Culler, p. 480
Constraints in Meaning Production	The interplay of restrictive conventions and the generation of meaning, which highlights that even creative interpretation relies on specific cultural and linguistic constraints.	Culler, p. 481
Ideological Circularity	The acknowledgment that structuralism cannot escape ideological constraints because its own methods and critiques are embedded within ideological systems.	Culler, p. 482

Contribution of “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Concept from Culler	Example of Critique Using Culler’s Framework	Reference in Culler’s Essay
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	Demystification of Ideology	Analyzing how Hamlet naturalizes royal power and familial loyalty as inevitable, masking the historical and ideological roots of monarchy.	Culler, p. 474
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Infinite Play of Meaning	Exploring the text’s open-ended linguistic play, where language exceeds fixed meanings, engaging the reader in active interpretation.	Culler, p. 480
Roland Barthes’ Mythologies	Cultural Norms as Ideological Constructs	Examining how societal myths, such as those in advertising or fashion, are treated as “natural” but are ideological products of bourgeois culture.	Culler, p. 474
Mallarmé’s Un Coup de Dés	Geno-Text and Relational Differences	Investigating how Mallarmé’s poetry resists conventional interpretations, emphasizing latent structures and infinite linguistic possibilities.	Culler, p. 477

Criticism Against “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Infinite Regress:
  Critics argue that Culler’s focus on the infinite regress of self-analysis in structuralism creates a paradox, where structuralism undermines its credibility by failing to establish any stable methodological ground.
• Ambiguity in Resolving Ideological Constraints:
  While Culler acknowledges structuralism’s inability to escape ideology, he does not provide a clear resolution to this limitation, leaving the critique theoretically unresolved.
• Insufficient Practical Application:
  The essay is critiqued for being overly theoretical, with limited guidance on how to practically apply its insights to specific literary works or broader cultural analyses.
• Neglect of Reader’s Experience:
  Some critics argue that Culler’s emphasis on structuralism’s ideological framework sidelines the lived experience and subjective engagement of readers with texts.
• Undermining Structuralist Foundations:
  By focusing on the ideological limitations and circularity of structuralism, the essay is seen as undermining the validity of the structuralist approach itself, leaving it vulnerable to criticism from more traditional methodologies.
• Overdependence on Derridean Concepts:
  Culler’s heavy reliance on Derrida’s notions, such as the critique of logocentrism and the play of meaning, is viewed as a move that aligns structuralism too closely with deconstruction, potentially overshadowing its distinct contributions.
• Resistance to Practical Criticism:
  The essay’s abstract nature and dense theoretical language make it inaccessible for scholars seeking practical tools for textual analysis, limiting its appeal outside academic theory.

Representative Quotations from “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“An ideology is a theory which justifies particular economic, political, and intellectual practices by concealing their historical origins…” (Culler, p. 471).	This defines ideology as a mechanism for naturalizing practices, making them appear inherent rather than constructed. It reflects structuralism’s concern with demystifying such naturalizations.
“The goal is not the construction of the greatest circle but the infinite play of circle-building” (Culler, p. 472).	Structuralism values the process of self-reflection and critique, emphasizing dynamic inquiry over definitive conclusions.
“Structuralists have tried to make the activity of self-analysis and self-transcendence a goal in itself” (Culler, p. 472).	This highlights structuralism’s commitment to critiquing its own methods, accepting that it cannot achieve absolute objectivity.
“The structure is commanded by a particular end; it is recognized as that which contributes to this end” (Culler, p. 474).	Culler critiques the teleological nature of structural analysis, which assumes a predefined purpose or center for structures.
“An intuitive understanding of the poem functions as the ‘center,’ governing the play of forms” (Culler, p. 475).	This illustrates how literary interpretations often rely on preexisting notions, which themselves reflect ideological assumptions.
“The fear that concepts which governed the analysis of meaning might be attacked as ideological premises…” (Culler, p. 477).	Structuralists’ self-criticism arises from their awareness that their own frameworks may also be ideological, leading to perpetual questioning of foundational assumptions.
“Interpretation is not a matter of recovering some meaning which lies… behind the work” (Culler, p. 478).	Culler argues that literary analysis should focus on the multiplicity of meanings and the interpretive process rather than seeking a single “true” meaning.
“The absence of any ultimate or transcendent meaning opens an unbounded space for the play of signification” (Culler, p. 479).	Drawing on Derrida, this points to the infinite potential for meaning within texts due to the absence of fixed centers or ultimate truths.
“Without restrictive rules there would be no meaning whatsoever” (Culler, p. 481).	Culler acknowledges that while structuralism critiques constraints, some level of structural coherence is essential for meaning to exist.
“Rather than try to get outside ideology we must remain resolutely within it” (Culler, p. 482).	Culler concludes that the study of ideology requires engagement with, rather than avoidance of, its influence, as ideology is an inescapable part of culture and interpretation.

Suggested Readings: “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure.” New Literary History, vol. 4, no. 3, 1973, pp. 471–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468530. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
2. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
3. Kavanagh, Thomas M. “Godard’s Revolution: The Politics of Meta-Cinema.” Diacritics, vol. 3, no. 2, 1973, pp. 49–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/464537. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
4. Shumway, David R. “How New Literary History Became a Theory Journal.” Symplokē, vol. 27, no. 1–2, 2019, pp. 459–64. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5250/symploke.27.1-2.0459. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi

“Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi first appeared in Feminist Review (No. 11, Sexuality) in the summer of 1982, published by Palgrave Macmillan Journals. It explores the intersections of jealousy, psychoanalysis, and gender, interrogating how jealousy manifests differently across sexes and is deeply embedded in patriarchal structures. Moi critiques the reductionist tendencies in sociological, psychoanalytic, and popular discourses on jealousy, arguing that these interpretations are often shaped by ideological assumptions about sexual difference. By engaging with Freud’s layered analysis of jealousy and Klein’s theories on early childhood development, Moi highlights how jealousy is socially conditioned and varies in expression: depressive and self-critical in women, aggressive and paranoid in men. This work is pivotal in feminist literary theory as it underscores the importance of contextualizing psychological phenomena like jealousy within the frameworks of gendered social norms and historical power dynamics.

Summary of “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi

1. Historical Perspectives on Jealousy
   Toril Moi explores the under-examined but pervasive theme of jealousy in academic and cultural discourse, emphasizing its normalization in historical contexts. Drawing on Freud, she highlights how jealousy often leads to extreme emotional states like violence and madness: “Jealousy is a notoriously dangerous passion” (Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 53). Moi critiques the lack of comprehensive scholarly focus on jealousy, attributing it to cultural shifts that render jealousy an unfashionable topic.
2. Jealousy and Sexual Difference
   The essay examines how cultural and academic interpretations of jealousy are shaped by gender assumptions. Sociologists like Edward Westermarck and Kingsley Davis associate male jealousy with ownership and societal rules regarding property, particularly the sexual possession of women (Moi, p. 55). Conversely, clinical psychiatrists and popular writers often depict women as more emotionally jealous, reflecting societal biases.
3. Psychoanalytic Layers of Jealousy
   Moi leverages Freud’s three layers of jealousy—normal, projected, and delusional. Freud argues that jealousy stems from unconscious conflicts, often tied to repression and rivalries: “Normal jealousy… is compounded of grief… and of enmity against the successful rival” (Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 57). Moi critiques Freud’s male-centered case studies, suggesting they fail to fully address female jealousy’s complexity.
4. Klein’s Insights on Early Development
   Melanie Klein’s theories on infant relationships emphasize the role of the mother in shaping early emotional experiences, including jealousy. Moi notes that women’s jealousy often reflects these early precedipal dynamics, where the mother is simultaneously an object of love and hostility (Moi, p. 59). In contrast, men’s jealousy is often oedipal, tied to rivalries with the father figure.
5. Social Context of Jealousy
   Moi argues that jealousy is not merely psychological but deeply entrenched in societal structures. Women’s dependency on men and the double standards surrounding male infidelity create a fertile ground for feminine jealousy. Moi contends, “Jealousy is not a stable, unchanging phenomenon; it changes with society” (Moi, p. 66).
6. Gendered Expressions of Aggression
   Jealousy manifests differently between genders. Men’s jealousy often leads to aggression against partners, while women’s jealousy is more likely to target rivals or manifest as depressive feelings (Moi, p. 65). Moi critiques the patriarchal framing of women as inherently more jealous, arguing that societal conditions, not biology, fuel these patterns.
7. Concluding Reflections
   Moi concludes that jealousy, particularly in patriarchal contexts, reinforces existing power imbalances between men and women. While men’s jealousy often dominates through violence or control, women’s jealousy is pathologized, reflecting societal norms that devalue women’s emotional responses (Moi, p. 68).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Source/Reference in Text
Normal Jealousy	A jealousy type derived from grief over potential loss, narcissistic injury, and rivalry.	Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 57
Projected Jealousy	Jealousy stemming from repressed impulses toward infidelity, projected onto one’s partner.	Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 57
Delusional Jealousy	Pathological jealousy with origins in repressed homosexuality, manifesting in paranoia.	Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 58
Precedipal Dynamics	Early infant experiences with the mother, encompassing love and hostility.	Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 59
Oedipal Complex	A stage of sexual differentiation where boys and girls face distinct emotional conflicts.	Freud and Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 60
L’Amour Captatif	A possessive form of love seeking total control over the loved object.	Lagache, qtd. in Moi, p. 64
L’Amour Oblatif	A self-effacing love that idealizes the loved object as supreme and unquestionable.	Lagache, qtd. in Moi, p. 64
Paranoid Position	A developmental stage where infants see objects (like the mother) as good or bad.	Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 59
Depressive Position	A stage where infants internalize loved objects and experience guilt for harming them.	Klein, qtd. in Moi, p. 59
Gendered Aggression in Jealousy	Men’s jealousy often leads to partner violence; women’s jealousy targets rivals or depresses them.	Moi, pp. 65-66
Jealousy as Social Construct	Jealousy varies across cultures and reflects societal norms, ideologies, and power dynamics.	Moi, pp. 65-66
Homosexual Component of Jealousy	Freud’s theory that jealousy often involves repressed homosexual desires or projections.	Freud, qtd. in Moi, p. 58
Sexual Property Model	The notion that jealousy is tied to societal rules about ownership and control of women.	Kingsley Davis, qtd. in Moi, p. 55
Masculine and Feminine Jealousy	Masculine jealousy is aggressive and paranoid (oedipal), while feminine jealousy is depressive (precedipal).	Moi, pp. 59-60

Contribution of “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories

• Integration of Psychoanalytic Frameworks in Feminist Theory
  Moi bridges Freud’s psychoanalytic theories of jealousy and Melanie Klein’s developmental psychology to reveal gendered differences in emotional experiences, enriching feminist interpretations of psychoanalytic literature (Moi, pp. 57-60).
• Critique of Patriarchal Norms in Emotional Constructs
  By exposing how jealousy is influenced by patriarchal ideologies that treat women as property, Moi contributes to feminist critiques of emotional and social norms embedded in literature (Moi, p. 55).
• Precedipal Dynamics in Feminine Jealousy
  Moi’s application of Klein’s theory to feminine jealousy emphasizes early emotional and mother-daughter relationships, highlighting precedipal influences that often go unexplored in traditional psychoanalytic and literary readings (Moi, pp. 59-60).
• Reframing Jealousy as a Social Construct
  Moi underscores that jealousy is not an inherent or universal emotion but shaped by cultural and historical contexts, offering a critical lens for examining literary characters and themes across different societies (Moi, pp. 65-66).
• Distinction Between Masculine and Feminine Jealousy in Literature
  The analysis of jealousy as oedipal (masculine) versus precedipal (feminine) offers a nuanced framework for interpreting character motivations and plot structures in literature (Moi, pp. 59-60).
• Intersection of Gender, Power, and Emotions in Narrative Analysis
  Moi reveals how jealousy in literature often reinforces or challenges societal power dynamics, particularly in narratives centered on infidelity or romantic conflict (Moi, p. 66).
• Critique of Reductionism in Popular and Scholarly Discourses
  Moi critiques the simplistic gender essentialism prevalent in sociological, psychiatric, and literary interpretations of jealousy, advocating for more nuanced readings (Moi, pp. 54-55).
• Contribution to Feminist Literary Criticism
  Moi’s essay demonstrates how psychoanalytic theories can be reinterpreted to align with feminist goals, challenging traditional male-centric narratives in literature (Moi, p. 68).

Examples of Critiques Through “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi

Literary Work	Critique Through Moi’s Framework	Key Theoretical Concepts Applied
Othello by William Shakespeare	Othello’s paranoia and violent jealousy reflect the masculine, oedipalized jealousy Moi identifies as aggressive and paranoid. Desdemona’s role as an object of possession ties to patriarchal norms of sexual property.	Masculine Jealousy (oedipal), Sexual Property Model (Moi, pp. 55, 64)
Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert	Emma Bovary’s feelings of dissatisfaction and jealousy towards others stem from a precedipal sense of lack and loss of love, aligning with Moi’s insights on feminine jealousy.	Feminine Jealousy (precedipal), Precedipal Dynamics (Moi, pp. 59-60)
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Tom Buchanan’s jealousy of Gatsby exemplifies masculine aggression and the patriarchal desire to control Daisy as a sexual property, while Daisy’s passive role reflects societal expectations of women.	Masculine Jealousy, Gendered Aggression in Jealousy (Moi, pp. 55-56, 65)
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë	Catherine and Heathcliff’s tumultuous relationship can be analyzed through Moi’s distinction between l’amour captatif and l’amour oblatif, with jealousy fueling possessiveness and destruction.	L’Amour Captatif, L’Amour Oblatif (Moi, pp. 64-65)

Criticism Against “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi

• Overreliance on Psychoanalytic Frameworks
  Moi’s analysis heavily relies on Freudian and Kleinian psychoanalysis, which some critics argue is outdated and lacks empirical support for its theories on gender and jealousy.
• Limited Intersectional Perspective
  The essay does not sufficiently address how race, class, or sexual orientation intersect with jealousy, focusing predominantly on gender within patriarchal contexts.
• Potential for Essentializing Gender Differences
  While Moi critiques essentialist views, her analysis of masculine (oedipal) and feminine (precedipal) jealousy risks reinforcing binary and deterministic views of gendered emotional experiences.
• Underdeveloped Social and Historical Contextualization
  Moi acknowledges the role of social and historical factors in shaping jealousy but does not deeply explore specific historical or cultural variations, limiting the scope of her sociological insights.
• Neglect of Alternative Theoretical Perspectives
  The essay does not engage extensively with non-psychoanalytic theories, such as cognitive or evolutionary psychology, which could offer broader explanations for jealousy beyond psychoanalysis.
• Lack of Practical Literary Applications
  Although Moi outlines robust theoretical insights, the essay could include more explicit applications of her framework to specific literary texts to demonstrate its critical utility.
• Ambiguity in Addressing Morality and Agency
  Moi’s analysis of jealousy as shaped by patriarchy does not fully explore the moral or individual agency aspects of jealousy, leaving certain ethical questions about actions driven by jealousy unresolved.

Representative Quotations from “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Jealousy is a notoriously dangerous passion and constitutes a well-recognised motive for crimes of violence, particularly of a gynocidal nature.”	Moi emphasizes the destructive power of jealousy, linking it to violence, especially against women. This frames jealousy as both a personal and societal issue, with implications rooted in patriarchal structures.
“Most authors who have written on jealousy are extremely interested in the question of sexual difference.”	This sets up Moi’s exploration of how jealousy is perceived and analyzed differently for men and women, signaling her critique of essentialist views on gender and jealousy.
“For Darwin, wives obviously do not belong to the race of ‘man,’ and therefore only men are jealous.”	Moi critiques Darwin’s androcentric perspective, which aligns jealousy with male ownership, reflecting patriarchal ideologies that deny women agency and autonomy in relationships.
“Jealousy will provoke a depressive reaction in women, and an aggressive or even paranoid reaction in men.”	Moi draws on psychoanalytic theories to differentiate the emotional expressions of jealousy between genders, linking it to societal expectations and psychological development stages.
“Women in patriarchal society must learn how to live with feelings of loss and lack of self-esteem.”	This underscores the structural inequalities women face in patriarchal systems, where societal norms diminish women’s value outside relationships, perpetuating internalized feelings of inadequacy.
“Freud distinguishes between what he calls three layers of jealousy: 1) competitive or normal, 2) projected, and 3) delusional jealousy.”	Moi uses Freud’s framework to provide a nuanced psychoanalytic understanding of jealousy, bridging theoretical and emotional dimensions of the phenomenon.
“The jealous man directs his aggression towards the beloved woman, and in extreme cases (crime passionnel) he may kill her.”	This highlights the extreme manifestations of male jealousy as influenced by patriarchal notions of possession, contrasting it with the depressive tendencies often seen in women’s jealousy.
“The problem seems to be feminine jealousy, since there is no reason to assume that Freud was wrong in his outline of masculine jealousy.”	Moi critiques Freud’s androcentric bias while acknowledging his insights into jealousy, using this to frame her own analysis of feminine jealousy and its precedipal roots.
“Jealousy is not a stable, unchanging phenomenon; it changes with society.”	Moi situates jealousy within social and historical contexts, rejecting universalist explanations and emphasizing its variability based on cultural and structural shifts.
“The jealous woman turns her aggression towards her own ego, and this, of course, leads to depression.”	Moi explores the internalized nature of feminine jealousy in patriarchal systems, contrasting it with the externalized aggression seen in male jealousy, thereby critiquing societal expectations and gender norms that shape emotional responses.

Suggested Readings: “Jealousy and Sexual Difference” by Toril Moi

1. Moi, Toril. “Jealousy and Sexual Difference.” Feminist Review, no. 11, 1982, pp. 53–68. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394827. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
2. Moi, Toril. “Representation of Patriarchy: Sexuality and Epistemology in Freud’s ‘Dora.'” Feminist Review, no. 9, 1981, pp. 60–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394915. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
3. Moi, Toril. “From Femininity to Finitude: Freud, Lacan, and Feminism, Again.” Signs, vol. 29, no. 3, 2004, pp. 841–78. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/380630. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

“Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi first appeared in Cultural Critique (No. 9, Spring 1988, pp. 3–22), published by the University of Minnesota Press. This seminal work explores the intersections of feminism and postmodernist theory, offering a critical examination of recent feminist criticism in the United States, particularly its engagement with French theoretical frameworks. Moi contrasts the materialist feminist traditions of Britain and Scandinavia with the French-inspired American feminist critiques, such as Alice Jardine’s Gynesis and Jane Gallop’s Reading Lacan. She addresses the tensions between feminist politics and postmodernism, questioning whether postmodern feminism can reconcile its theoretical critiques of patriarchal structures with tangible political objectives. Moi’s essay is pivotal in literary theory for its critique of the depoliticization of feminist discourse within postmodernist paradigms, advocating instead for a politicized, inclusive approach to feminist theory that navigates the contradictions of equality and difference without capitulating to patriarchal binaries. Her work remains influential in feminist literary criticism for its depth of analysis and insistence on the material and ideological underpinnings of feminist struggles.

Summary of “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context/Usage in the Essay
Postmodernism	A theoretical approach that challenges universal truths and metanarratives, emphasizing the fragmented, subjective nature of knowledge and identity.	Moi critiques postmodernism’s rejection of metanarratives, arguing that it complicates feminist political goals by rendering feminism itself a problematic or repressive narrative (Moi 6).
Socialist Feminism	A feminist framework that integrates Marxist analysis of class with feminist analysis of gender, focusing on material and structural conditions of women’s oppression.	Moi identifies herself as a socialist feminist, contrasting her approach with the depoliticized tendencies of some postmodern feminist theories (Moi 4).
Gynesis	Coined by Alice Jardine, it refers to the process of putting “woman” or “the feminine” into discourse as the repressed Other, often celebrated in postmodernist thought.	Moi critiques Jardine’s Gynesis for valorizing the feminine as an abstract concept while failing to anchor it in anti-patriarchal, materialist contexts (Moi 12).
Equality vs. Difference	The dual feminist goals of achieving gender equality and affirming women’s unique experiences and identities, which are often seen as contradictory.	Moi explores the dialectical tension between these approaches, arguing that both are essential but incompatible under patriarchy (Moi 5).
Phallogocentrism	A term combining “phallocentrism” and “logocentrism,” used in poststructuralist theory to critique the privileging of male-centered logic and discourse.	Moi discusses how feminists must deconstruct phallogocentric binaries without losing their grounding in political struggle (Moi 7).
Castration	In Lacanian psychoanalysis, a metaphor for the lack or incompleteness inherent in subjectivity, often tied to patriarchal structures of power and authority.	Moi critiques Jane Gallop’s universalization of castration in Reading Lacan, arguing it obscures gendered power imbalances (Moi 14).
Materialist Feminism	A feminist framework focusing on the material and economic conditions of women’s lives and their structural basis in patriarchy and capitalism.	Moi advocates for materialist feminism as a way to address systemic inequalities and avoid the abstraction of feminist theories like those in postmodernism (Moi 20).
Otherness	A philosophical and psychoanalytic concept referring to the construction of an entity or group as fundamentally different or alien, often used to marginalize or oppress.	Moi critiques the postmodern feminist use of Otherness, arguing it risks perpetuating patriarchal ideologies by abstracting oppression from its material and historical contexts (Moi 12).
Third Space	A concept borrowed from Julia Kristeva, referring to a deconstructive space beyond binary oppositions such as equality/difference or male/female.	Moi acknowledges the potential of Kristeva’s third space but critiques its utopian aspects, emphasizing the need for feminists to address material realities (Moi 7).
Deconstruction	A poststructuralist method of analysis that seeks to expose and dismantle the binary oppositions and implicit hierarchies within texts and discourses.	Moi draws on Derrida and Kristeva to discuss how feminists can deconstruct patriarchal binaries without undermining feminist political commitments (Moi 18).
Postfeminism	A term used to describe feminist approaches influenced by postmodernism, often characterized by their critique of universal feminist goals and emphasis on multiplicity and subjectivity.	Moi critiques postfeminism for its abstract focus on Otherness and reluctance to engage in political struggle, describing it as avoiding the agonistic core of feminism (Moi 12).
Feminist Critique	Coined by Elaine Showalter, this refers to a mode of feminist analysis that emphasizes the political and ideological underpinnings of literature and culture.	Moi critiques postmodern feminist theorists like Jardine for abandoning feminist critique in favor of abstract theorizing (Moi 10).

Contribution of “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

Literary Work	Key Critique Based on Moi’s Framework	Explanation/Analysis from Moi’s Perspective
Alice Jardine’s Gynesis	Abstracts “woman” as a concept, detaching it from materialist and political contexts.	Moi critiques Jardine for celebrating femininity in abstract terms, noting that “the promotion and valorization of Otherness will never liberate the oppressed” (Moi 12). Jardine’s focus on textualized femininity lacks grounding in real-world struggles against patriarchy.
Jane Gallop’s Reading Lacan	Substitutes stylistic innovation for substantive feminist critique, erasing gendered power dynamics through a universalized concept of castration.	Moi argues that Gallop’s use of Lacanian psychoanalysis undermines feminist politics by framing castration as a universal condition, stating, “Women are always already cast as lacking” (Moi 14). This approach fails to address the material inequalities between men and women.
Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex	Demonstrates the importance of politically grounded feminist writing and style that challenges patriarchal structures.	Moi praises de Beauvoir’s authoritative philosophical style as a subversive intervention into male-dominated discourse. She notes, “Her deliberate assumption of traditional discursive authority represented a massive invasion of previously patriarchal discursive terrain” (Moi 22).
Jacques Derrida’s Theories	Offers valuable tools for deconstructing patriarchal binaries but risks depoliticizing feminist critique if used without materialist grounding.	Moi integrates Derrida’s deconstruction but critiques its potential for abstracting feminist struggles, arguing, “We must situate our deconstructive gestures in specific political contexts” (Moi 18). Without this, deconstruction risks reinforcing rather than dismantling oppressive structures.

Criticism Against “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

Representative Quotations from “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Feminism is strictly speaking an impossible position.” (p. 6)	Moi argues that feminism aims to abolish itself by dismantling patriarchy, making its ultimate goal paradoxically unattainable.
“Equality and difference are not in this sense antitheses.” (p. 6)	Emphasizing that feminism must navigate the tension between asserting women’s equality and valuing women’s differences.
“Postfeminism can never be post-feminist.” (p. 12)	Critiques the notion of postfeminism as depoliticized and argues that it still operates within patriarchal frameworks.
“We must, then, at once live out the contradictions of all three feminisms and agonistically take sides.” (p. 7)	Advocates for a dialectical approach, embracing contradictions while engaging in political action.
“The promotion and valorization of Otherness will never liberate the oppressed.” (p. 12)	Critiques postmodernism’s abstraction of “Otherness,” arguing it lacks the specificity needed for feminist action.
“To name is to exercise power.” (p. 10)	Highlights the political importance of defining terms, rejecting the postmodernist reluctance to define feminism.
“Feminist intellectuals cannot avoid polemics and value judgments.” (p. 10)	Asserts that taking political positions is essential for feminist scholarship, contrasting with postmodern objectivity.
“Feminism is much more than a commitment to a certain style.” (p. 16)	Rejects the reduction of feminism to stylistic practices, emphasizing its roots in substantive political engagement.
“There can never be one correct feminist style.” (p. 22)	Celebrates diversity in feminist approaches, rejecting the idea of a singular feminist style or methodology.
“To take up a political position means accepting the pain of loss, sacrifice, and closure.” (p. 7)	Reflects on the difficulties and sacrifices involved in adopting a committed political stance in feminism.

Suggested Readings: “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style” by Toril Moi

1. Moi, Toril. “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style: Recent Feminist Criticism in the United States.” Cultural Critique, no. 9, 1988, pp. 3–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354232. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
2. Showden, Carisa R. “What’s Political about the New Feminisms?” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, 2009, pp. 166–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40388740. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
3. Jarratt, Susan C. “Beside Ourselves: Rhetoric and Representation in Postcolonial Feminist Writing.” JAC, vol. 18, no. 1, 1998, pp. 57–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866171. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.
4. Irving, Katrina. “(Still) Hesitating on the Threshold: Feminist Theory and the Question of the Subject.” NWSA Journal, vol. 1, no. 4, 1989, pp. 630–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315959. Accessed 12 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

“On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in the Spring of 1978 (Vol. 9, No. 3) as part of a thematic issue on rhetorical analyses. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, this work examines the intricate relationship between rhetorical tropes and acts of persuasion, situating rhetoric as a field both of structural conventions and dynamic events. Culler argues that rhetoric is marked by paradoxes, such as its simultaneous role as a toolkit of figures and a process producing meaningful events. He explores how rhetoric operates in literary and textual contexts, influencing both the creation and interpretation of meaning. This essay is significant in literary theory for challenging static definitions of rhetoric and emphasizing its fluid interplay with semiotics, tropes, and the interpretative acts of readers and critics. By interrogating the undecidability inherent in rhetorical and literary practices, Culler highlights the dynamic, often contradictory nature of meaning-making, leaving a lasting impact on discussions of textuality and rhetorical criticism.

Summary of “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

1. The Dual Nature of Rhetoric
   Culler argues that rhetoric occupies a paradoxical position, being simultaneously a set of structured conventions and a dynamic force capable of producing unpredictable events. This dual nature challenges traditional definitions and positions rhetoric as both a framework and a phenomenon of textuality (Culler, 1978, p. 608).
2. Tropes as the Essence of Persuasion
   The essay explores the relationship between tropes (figurative language) and persuasion. While tropes structure discourse, their ability to generate meaning is discontinuous and incalculable. This interplay illustrates the inherent instability in rhetorical analysis, where structure often fails to fully explain events (p. 609).
3. Rhetorical Analysis and Ambiguity
   Culler highlights contributions from other scholars like Stanley Meltzoff, who views rhetoric as the synthesis of linguistic and semiotic elements to produce events. However, Meltzoff acknowledges that the complexities of rhetorical effects, such as ambiguities, resist definitive analysis (p. 609-610).
4. Case Studies of Shakespearean Rhetoric
   The analysis includes Thomas MacCary’s exploration of comedic patterns in The Comedy of Errors and Berel Lang’s examination of the tragic structure in King Lear. Lang successfully integrates structure and audience response, showing how rhetorical devices shape tragic effects, particularly through audience identification with Lear (p. 610-611).
5. The Incertitude of Linguistic Constructs
   Ann Banfield’s discussion of style indirect libre (free indirect style) is critiqued for its focus on linguistic structures at the expense of rhetorical effects. Culler asserts that the interpretive function of such styles lies in their ambiguity, which resists fixed linguistic classification (p. 612).
6. Rhetorical Figures in Classical Literature
   In discussing Oedipus Rex, Culler highlights how rhetorical figures, like metonymic reversals, blur the boundaries between meaning and events. The guilt of Oedipus arises not from the act itself but from the narrative’s interpretive framework, illustrating how rhetoric constructs reality (p. 614-615).
7. Rhetoric as Generative and Ungrounded
   The essay extends to modern literature, as seen in Peter Brooks’ analysis of Frankenstein. The rhetoric of the monster disrupts traditional language and meaning, illustrating how ungrounded discourse can both persuade and destabilize humanistic values (p. 616).
8. Political and Literary Dimensions of Rhetoric
   Victor Brombert’s work on Victor Hugo is discussed to show how rhetoric operates in political and literary criticism. Hugo’s assertions about textuality and indeterminacy reflect rhetoric’s power to simultaneously affirm and challenge interpretive norms (p. 617).
9. Conclusion: The Inherent Aporias of Rhetoric
   Culler concludes that rhetoric is defined by its aporias—moments of irresolvable ambiguity. These aporias underscore the duality of rhetoric as both structural and event-driven, making it central to literary analysis and interpretation (p. 618).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Significance
Rhetoric	The art of using language to persuade or influence others, encompassing both structures (rules) and events.	Highlights the paradoxical duality in rhetoric: structured conventions vs. dynamic, unpredictable outcomes.
Trope	A figurative or rhetorical device used to shape meaning within a discourse.	Essential to persuasion but inherently unstable; the basis of rhetorical and textual analysis.
Persuasion	The process by which rhetoric influences thought or behavior, often through emotional or logical appeal.	Demonstrates rhetoric’s power to create meaning and incite action, despite its unpredictability.
Structure and Event	The interplay between established rhetorical forms and the unpredictable outcomes they produce.	Emphasizes the incalculable nature of rhetorical effects; structures alone cannot fully explain events.
Paradox	The contradictory characteristics inherent in rhetoric, such as being essential yet often avoided.	Reflects the complexity and fluidity of rhetoric as a field of study.
Style Indirect Libre	A narrative style blending the perspectives of the narrator and character, creating ambiguous attribution.	Exemplifies the indeterminate and interpretive nature of rhetorical and literary discourse.
Metonymic Reversal	A rhetorical shift where cause and effect are inverted, as seen in the narrative construction of events.	Illustrates the constructed nature of reality in rhetoric, as in Oedipus Rex.
Ambiguity	The openness of rhetorical figures to multiple interpretations, preventing definitive meaning.	Central to rhetoric’s power and its analytical challenges; shapes interpretive acts.
Intertextuality	The interconnectedness of texts through shared references and rhetorical structures.	Highlights how meaning is created and contested within a broader textual framework, as in Hugo’s works.
Rhetoricity	The quality of language that foregrounds its rhetorical nature, as opposed to direct representation.	Explored in Frankenstein as a disruption of traditional humanistic discourse.
Aporia	An irresolvable contradiction or impasse within rhetoric or textual analysis.	Exemplifies the limits of rhetorical understanding and its inherent complexities.
Figures of Identification	Tropes that create a shared perspective between character and audience, as seen in King Lear.	Key to the emotional and rhetorical power of texts, particularly in dramatic contexts.
Textuality	The concept of the world as a text, subject to interpretation and imbued with rhetorical structures.	Challenges assumptions about fixed reality; central to Hugo’s view of the world as authored by God.

Contribution of “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique Through Culler’s Framework	Key Concepts from Culler’s Essay	Reference
The Comedy of Errors	Examines its comedic pattern as pre-oedipal and narcissistic, relying on the audience’s identification with the characters’ struggles.	– Rhetorical appeal – Structure and event – Identification in rhetoric	Culler, 1978, p. 609
King Lear	Analyzes the tragedy’s emotional power through tropes of identification, merging the perspectives of Lear and the audience.	– Figures of identification – Structure vs. event – Ambiguity	Culler, 1978, p. 610-611
Oedipus Rex	Highlights metonymic reversals, where guilt is inferred from narrative repetition, demonstrating how rhetoric constructs meaning.	– Metonymic reversal – Aporia in rhetoric – Textual construction of reality	Culler, 1978, p. 614-615
Frankenstein	Focuses on the monster’s ungrounded rhetoric, which disrupts traditional humanistic discourse and persuades readers to see the monster as human.	– Rhetoricity – Language as ungrounded – Subversion of humanistic values	Culler, 1978, p. 616

Criticism Against “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

Representative Quotations from “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Rhetoric is the art of using language effectively, yet it is also that which any composition must avoid if it is to be truly effective.”	Highlights the paradoxical nature of rhetoric: simultaneously essential for persuasion and potentially disruptive.
“The relationship between structure and event is incalculable, which is why rhetoric is fated…to be simultaneously a discourse of structure and event.”	Emphasizes the unpredictable interplay between rhetorical forms (structure) and their real-world impact (event).
“Rhetorical analysis attempts to account for these events, and it does so by identifying structures, patterns, figures.”	Defines the aim of rhetorical analysis: understanding how rhetorical elements influence discourse and meaning.
“Ambiguities balance… until we see where the ambiguities balance.”	Reflects rhetoric’s capacity to accommodate and sustain multiple interpretations without definitive resolution.
“One cannot claim with any confidence that the responses to the play correspond to the effects predicted for its structure.”	Critiques the unpredictability of rhetorical effects, demonstrating the complexity of connecting intent with outcome.
“Style indirect libre is a function which sentences can be given, and there are features which may lead the reader to give sentences this function.”	Explains how certain narrative techniques encourage readers to attribute ambiguous rhetorical significance.
“Man discovers himself enigmatic, without stability or a domain proper to him, oscillating between the equal of god and the equal of nothing.”	Explores the existential implications of rhetoric as a force that destabilizes identity and meaning.
“Instead of inferring a meaning from a deed, we infer a deed from a meaning.”	Illustrates how rhetoric reverses traditional causality, constructing events through interpretive frameworks.
“The monster’s rhetoric… persuades those who, like the blind de Lacey, cannot see that it is being used not in its proper human reference but in reference to the improper, the monstrous.”	Demonstrates how rhetoric subverts expectations, redefining the boundaries between the human and the monstrous.
“Faith may stand firm against textuality. That is what Brombert needs in his political battle… or else effacing tropes and ending the need for persuasion.”	Suggests that belief or faith might counter rhetoric’s destabilizing tendencies, highlighting its political implications.

Suggested Readings: “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler

1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
2. Culler, Jonathan. “On Trope and Persuasion.” New Literary History, vol. 9, no. 3, 1978, pp. 607–18. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468458. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
3. Vickers, Brian. “The Atrophy of Modern Rhetoric, Vico to De Man.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 6, no. 1, 1988, pp. 21–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.1.21. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
4. Kelly, Dorothy. “The Ghost of Meaning: Language in the Fantastic.” SubStance, vol. 11, no. 2, 1982, pp. 46–55. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3684024. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
5. Mattson, Craig E. “A Better Feeling for Making the World Better? TOMS’s Tropes and the Buy-One-Give-One Mode.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 5, 2018, pp. 440–58. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48544137. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

“New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the New Literary History, Vol. 25, No. 4, in its 25th Anniversary Issue (Autumn, 1994). Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, this essay critically examines the evolving role of journals in shaping literary studies, particularly highlighting the contributions of New Literary History to the integration of European theoretical frameworks into the American academic landscape. Culler discusses how the journal, initially oriented toward rethinking literary history, became a platform for introducing and debating diverse theoretical perspectives such as structuralism, deconstruction, and psychoanalytic criticism. Emphasizing its pioneering role in fostering dialogues between American and European thought, the essay underscores the journal’s importance in reshaping the critical methodologies and intellectual horizons of literary studies, marking it as a vital force in the evolution of contemporary literary theory. Its impact lies in facilitating the cross-pollination of ideas that encouraged more explicit theoretical reflection and methodological innovation within the discipline.

Summary of “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Reference/Context in Article
New Criticism	A mid-20th-century literary movement emphasizing close reading and textual analysis over historical or biographical context.	Culler discusses how journals like The Southern Review and The Kenyon Review propelled this movement (Culler, 870).
Structuralism	A theoretical approach focusing on underlying structures (e.g., language, myth) that shape texts and cultural practices.	Represented in early New Literary History volumes through contributions by Lévi-Strauss and Todorov (Culler, 873-874).
Poststructuralism	A reaction against structuralism, emphasizing fluidity, multiplicity of meanings, and the instability of language and structures.	Explored through works like Mark Seem’s article on antiliterature influenced by Deleuze and Foucault (Culler, 877).
Literary Theory	The study of methods, principles, and tools for interpreting texts, incorporating diverse perspectives like psychoanalysis, Marxism, and feminism.	Became the focal point of New Literary History, moving away from its initial focus on literary history (Culler, 872-873).
Hermeneutics	The theory and methodology of interpretation, particularly of texts.	Exemplified in Paul Ricoeur’s essay, which positions textual interpretation as central to understanding social sciences (876).
Feminism	A theoretical lens that examines gender inequalities and promotes understanding of women’s roles and representation in literature and society.	Increased prominence in the journal’s later issues, as seen in contributions from feminist scholars (Culler, 874).
Psychoanalysis	A theoretical framework that explores the unconscious mind’s influence on behavior, art, and literature, often referencing Freud and Lacan.	Referenced frequently in the 1993 volumes, marking its integration into literary discourse (Culler, 877).
Narratology	The study of narrative structures and how they affect readers’ understanding and interpretation.	Discussed in Mieke Bal’s article exploring narrative as epistemology (Culler, 878).
Antiliterature	A counter-discourse rejecting traditional forms of continuity, representation, and totality in literature.	Explored by Mark Seem through the lens of French theory, particularly Deleuze and Foucault (Culler, 877).
Interdisciplinarity	The integration of methods and concepts from multiple disciplines (e.g., sociology, history) into literary studies.	Central to the journal’s mission, encouraging articles from diverse fields (Culler, 873).

Contribution of “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

• Advancement of Structuralism
  • New Literary History played a pivotal role in integrating structuralist theories into American literary discourse. The journal featured influential contributions from theorists like Lévi-Strauss and Todorov, who explored structural definitions of literature and myths (Culler, 873-874).
  • Example: Todorov’s essay on the “Notion of Literature” highlighted structuralism’s capacity to question the homogeneity of literary discourse, fostering genre-based analysis (Culler, 876).
• Promotion of Poststructuralism
  • By the 1990s, New Literary History helped mainstream poststructuralist theories, focusing on fluidity, decentralization of meaning, and anti-totality concepts.
  • Example: Mark Seem’s article “Liberation of Difference” theorized counterdiscourses and explored poststructuralist ideas rooted in Deleuze and Foucault’s works (Culler, 877).
• Incorporation of Psychoanalytic Criticism
  • The journal integrated Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis as critical frameworks, especially in the 1990s volumes.
  • Example: References to Lacan, Kristeva, and Irigaray became frequent in exploring identity, subjectivity, and unconscious dynamics in literary texts (Culler, 877).
• Expansion of Feminist Literary Theory
  • Contributions by feminist scholars in the 1993 volumes signified a broader acceptance of feminist theoretical approaches.
  • Example: The increased presence of women contributors and articles on gender and feminist critique enriched the theoretical landscape of literary studies (Culler, 874).
• Narratology as an Interdisciplinary Tool
  • The journal fostered innovative uses of narratology beyond literature, framing it as a tool for understanding knowledge production in social sciences.
  • Example: Mieke Bal’s essay “Narrative as Epistemology” demonstrated how narratological methods could address interdisciplinary epistemological issues (Culler, 878).
• Critique of Traditional Literary History
  • While initially aiming to revitalize literary history, New Literary History pivoted towards critical theory and interdisciplinarity. This shift redefined how literary history is approached, often rejecting traditional linear narratives (Culler, 872).
• Bridging American and European Theory
  • The journal became a mediator between European theoretical paradigms (e.g., structuralism, poststructuralism) and American literary criticism, fostering intellectual cross-pollination.
  • Example: Articles juxtaposed European theorists like Ricoeur and Lévi-Strauss with American scholars, enabling theoretical synthesis (Culler, 873).
• Development of Interdisciplinarity
  • New Literary History encouraged the convergence of literary studies with sociology, linguistics, and history, promoting methodological innovation.
  • Example: Theoretical frameworks from social sciences were adapted to explore literature’s evolving role (Culler, 873-874).

Examples of Critiques Through “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique/Analysis	Theoretical Framework	Reference/Context in Article
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë	Frank Kermode situates the novel within the context of European theory, particularly Wolfgang Iser’s ideas on indeterminacies in texts and Roland Barthes’s narrative plurality. Kermode embraces pluralism but resists Barthes’s extreme views on textual naivety and plurality by accident.	Reader-response theory and structuralist critique.	Culler highlights Kermode’s nuanced reading of Brontë’s work (Culler, 875).
Rousseau’s Works	Peter Brooks draws on Derrida’s treatment of Rousseau to explore themes of speech, writing, and gesture. The analysis reconfigures muteness as a type of signifying practice rather than a mere theme.	Poststructuralism, particularly Derrida’s deconstruction.	Brooks’s essay “The Text of Muteness” is discussed as an example (Culler, 874).
Proust’s and Beckett’s Works	Mark Seem discusses these works as examples of antiliterature, rejecting traditional continuity and representation. Their discourse exemplifies nomadic anarchy and production of difference, aligning with Deleuzian ideas.	Poststructuralism, particularly Deleuze and Foucault’s theories of difference and counterdiscourses.	Seem’s essay “Liberation of Difference: Toward a Theory of Antiliterature” (Culler, 877).
Myths and Folklore	Lévi-Strauss analyzes myths, focusing on how structural transformations cause myths to die or attenuate over time. This structuralist analysis highlights underlying patterns in cultural narratives.	Structuralism, specifically Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology.	Culler refers to Lévi-Strauss’s article “How Myths Die” (Culler, 876).

Criticism Against “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on European Theories
  • Critics argue that the article disproportionately highlights European theoretical frameworks like structuralism and poststructuralism, sidelining other global or indigenous theoretical contributions.
• Neglect of Practical Literary History
  • While the journal’s initial goal was to revitalize literary history, critics contend that it drifted towards abstract theoretical discourse, neglecting the practical reconstruction of literary histories (Culler, 872).
• Lack of Coherence in Theoretical Focus
  • The article highlights the journal’s shift from focused discussions on poetics to a broader and more fragmented range of topics, leading to a perceived lack of coherence in later issues (Culler, 873).
• Underrepresentation of Non-Western Perspectives
  • Despite increased diversity in contributors by 1993, the article itself does not sufficiently critique the Eurocentric dominance in the journal’s earlier years or its limited engagement with non-Western literary traditions (Culler, 874).
• Minimal Critical Engagement with Theories
  • The article tends to describe the journal’s contributions to literary theory without critically assessing the limitations or potential drawbacks of the theoretical paradigms discussed.
• Overreliance on Editorial Vision
  • The article credits much of the journal’s trajectory to Ralph Cohen’s editorial leadership, which critics might see as limiting the scope of collective scholarly influence (Culler, 878).
• Ambiguity in Defining “Theory”
  • Culler uses the term “theory” broadly, leading to potential ambiguities about what constitutes theory versus literary history or criticism in the context of the journal.
• Focus on Institutional Backing
  • Critics may find the emphasis on institutional and financial aspects (e.g., university funding for journals) distracting from the core intellectual contributions of the journal (Culler, 872).

Representative Quotations from “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation	Reference
“Journals may be decisive for the development of a critical movement, even though there is another level at which books remain decisive for criticism in general.”	Highlights the dual role of journals and books, with journals fostering innovation and books offering enduring frameworks for literary criticism.	Culler, 870
“The New Criticism originated as an argument about the nature of poetry in T. S. Eliot’s The Sacred Wood (1920), but also as a challenge to the historical scholarship in several new quarterlies.”	Contextualizes the emergence of New Criticism, emphasizing how journals served as platforms for theoretical debates and innovation in literary studies.	Culler, 870
“The hoped-for renovation of literary history did not occur in its pages, and the journal found itself increasingly focused on literary theory in general.”	Critiques the shift in New Literary History away from its initial goal of revitalizing literary history toward a broader focus on theoretical discussions.	Culler, 872
“European theory in this volume means several things: primarily, perhaps, the sort of poetics encouraged by French structuralism.”	Emphasizes the significant influence of French structuralist poetics as a central framework within New Literary History’s early theoretical focus.	Culler, 874
“Structuralism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics were juxtaposed with essays by American critics who were drawing on European theory.”	Highlights the journal’s bridging role, juxtaposing European theoretical paradigms with American literary scholarship to foster interdisciplinary discourse.	Culler, 874
“New Literary History quickly became a major forum for the discussion and assimilation of foreign work, though this had not seemed its original goal.”	Notes the evolution of the journal into a platform for global theoretical exchange, particularly emphasizing its role in assimilating European influences.	Culler, 872
“In the 1990s, European theory meant something other than poetics and affiliated projects; French psychoanalytic theory was now taken for granted as a resource.”	Reflects the journal’s expanding theoretical scope, particularly its integration of psychoanalytic frameworks into literary and cultural studies.	Culler, 877
“The turn to history came not in the pages of New Literary History but in Representations … analyzing nonliterary discourses of the past alongside literature.”	Contrasts the theoretical focus of New Literary History with the historical and interdisciplinary approach of other journals like Representations.	Culler, 875
“What has happened to literary and cultural theory is that people teaching in literature departments may be working on film and popular culture … without referring to literary works at all.”	Critiques the broadening scope of literary studies, where theoretical frameworks often transcend traditional literary texts, focusing on popular culture and other disciplines.	Culler, 873
“Perhaps the time has come for another revision of the invitation to contributors.”	Suggests a need for New Literary History to redefine its editorial goals to better align with its evolving theoretical and interdisciplinary focus.	Culler, 873

Suggested Readings: “New Literary History and European Theory” by Jonathan Culler

1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
2. Culler, Jonathan. “New Literary History and European Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 25, no. 4, 1994, pp. 869–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469379. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
3. Williams, Jeffrey J. “The Rise of the Theory Journal.” New Literary History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2009, pp. 683–702. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40666435. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler

“Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History (Vol. 7, No. 2) in the Winter of 1976, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This pivotal essay explores the methodological challenges in constructing literary history, particularly emphasizing the limitations of chronological and causally deterministic models. Culler critiques traditional approaches that either reduce literature to social or economic reflections or analyze it as isolated works devoid of broader cultural contexts. Instead, he advocates for a semiological framework, positioning literature as a system of signs within broader cultural and symbolic systems. This perspective allows for the examination of literature’s formal operations in producing meaning and its interaction with societal signification processes. By linking the study of literary conventions to their socio-cultural contexts, Culler redefines literary history as a history of meaning-making rather than a mere chronology of works or authors. This essay has had a lasting impact on literary theory, particularly influencing structuralist and poststructuralist discussions on the interplay of literature, culture, and semiotics.

Summary of “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler

1. Reimagining Literary History
   Jonathan Culler critiques traditional approaches to literary history, which fail to adequately integrate literature into cultural history. He proposes a semiological perspective, treating literature and culture as interconnected systems of signs. This approach allows for the study of how literature produces meaning within cultural contexts (Culler 259-261).
2. Challenges in Writing Literary History
   Culler identifies issues with sequential and causally deterministic models of literary history. He asserts that literature cannot be solely understood through chronological development, as it lacks direct causal relationships with preceding works. Instead, he argues for examining the homology of form between literature and society, focusing on shared mechanisms of meaning production (Culler 261-263).
3. Semiological Systems and Cultural Production
   Culler emphasizes that literature operates as a symbolic system within broader cultural semiotics. By understanding literature as a convention-driven system of meaning, scholars can uncover its interplay with societal signification processes. This view aligns with structuralist and poststructuralist methodologies (Culler 263-265).
4. The Symbolic and Allegorical in Literary Production
   Culler distinguishes between symbolic and allegorical modes of signification. Symbols suggest inherent connections between signifier and signified, while allegory highlights imposed and constructed relationships. He critiques Coleridge’s preference for the symbolic as an idealized metaphysical framework and advocates reevaluating allegory as a critical lens for modern literature (Culler 265-267).
5. Rescuing Allegory in Literature
   Culler asserts that allegory, dismissed as artificial and arbitrary, deserves recognition for its ability to critique and deconstruct meaning-making processes. He illustrates this with Baudelaire’s poetry, which self-reflexively interrogates the construction of meaning and highlights the tensions within symbolic interpretation (Culler 266-268).
6. Implications for Semiological Literary History
   Culler concludes by emphasizing the necessity of a semiological approach for constructing a meaningful literary history. This method focuses on the formal operations of signification within literature and culture, offering a dynamic framework for understanding their historical interrelations (Culler 269-270).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Relevance in the Essay
Literary History	The study of literature’s development over time, often organized chronologically or thematically.	Culler critiques traditional models for lacking integration with cultural history and suggests semiological methods.
Semiology	The study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative systems.	Proposed by Culler as a framework to understand literature as a system of meaning production.
Homology of Form	Structural parallels between literature and society, focusing on shared mechanisms of meaning production.	Used to bridge the gap between literature and cultural history, moving beyond mere thematic content.
Symbol	A motivated sign where the signifier and signified are naturally connected, often implying organic unity.	Discussed in contrast to allegory, with Culler critiquing its idealized role in Romantic aesthetics.
Allegory	A constructed or imposed relationship between signifier and signified, often emphasizing difference over unity.	Rehabilitated by Culler as a critical tool for understanding the tensions in meaning-making processes.
Cultural History	The study of societal developments, focusing on symbolic and interpretive frameworks.	Culler situates literary history within cultural history to highlight shared semiological structures.
Formalism	An analytical approach emphasizing the formal structures and conventions of literary texts.	Advocated as a “radical formalism” to construct a literary history centered on signification processes.
Signification	The process by which signs generate meaning within a communicative system.	Central to Culler’s argument for a semiological literary history that focuses on meaning production.
Pseudodeterminism	A narrative convention that combines symbolic and causal explanation to make human actions intelligible.	Analyzed as a device in Balzac’s novels to connect characters’ actions with broader cultural systems.
Effet de Réel (Effect of the Real)	A narrative technique that creates an illusion of reality through descriptive detail without deeper thematic purpose.	Illustrated in Flaubert’s prose as a method to critique traditional symbolic conventions in literature.
Symbolic Interpretation	The act of finding inherent meaning within a text, often tied to metaphysical or universal truths.	Questioned by Culler for its reliance on faith in natural connections, contrasting with allegorical methods.
Demystification	The process of exposing constructed or artificial aspects of meaning-making.	Used to show how allegory critiques and deconstructs traditional symbolic modes of interpretation.
Intertextuality	The relationship between literary texts and broader cultural or symbolic systems.	Highlighted as a key focus for a semiological approach to literary history.

Contribution of “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Key Concept Applied	Critique Through Culler’s Framework	Reference from Culler’s Essay
Balzac’s La Comédie humaine	Pseudodeterminism	Balzac’s characters, such as Goriot and Grandet, are produced through semiotic operations, emphasizing symbolic yet causally ambiguous behaviors. This reflects broader cultural attempts to render the chaotic social world intelligible.	“The principal convention is that of a pervasive pseudodeterminism… a hesitation between treating them as signs and effects” (Culler 261).
Flaubert’s Madame Bovary	Effet de Réel	Descriptive passages, such as the depiction of Yonville, create an illusion of reality without thematic or symbolic depth. This “effect of the real” critiques traditional symbolic conventions by resisting deeper meaning-making.	“Transparent as description… they yield only an empty meaning” (Culler 267-268).
Wordsworth’s “Elegiac Stanzas”	Demystified Symbolism	The poem juxtaposes two temporal readings of a scene, exposing the fragility of symbolic interpretation and its reliance on acts of faith. This reflects literature’s self-awareness of time’s impact on meaning.	“Symbolic interpretation is preserved, but its fragility, its reliance on an act of faith, is made apparent” (Culler 266).
Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du Mal	Self-reflexive Allegory	Baudelaire’s poems, such as “Alchimie de la douleur,” highlight the arbitrary nature of symbolic connections, emphasizing the process of poetic creation as a cultural construction rather than a revelation of intrinsic truth.	“The movement of poetic consciousness creating signs with full awareness that they are arbitrary becomes a major theme” (Culler 267).

Criticism Against “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Semiotics
  Critics argue that Culler’s reliance on semiological systems to interpret literature risks reducing the richness of literary texts to mere sign systems. This focus may neglect the emotional, psychological, and aesthetic dimensions of literature that transcend structural analysis.
• Neglect of Historical Specificity
  While Culler aims to integrate literature within cultural history, some critics suggest that his approach lacks attention to specific historical, political, and material conditions that shape literary production and reception. This could lead to generalized or abstract interpretations.
• Bias Against Symbolism
  Culler’s critique of symbolic modes and preference for allegory is seen by some as overly dismissive of the symbolic tradition, particularly its ability to connect literature with universal human experiences and metaphysical truths.
• Methodological Complexity
  The proposed “radical formalism” and semiological approach are considered too complex and inaccessible for general application in literary studies. Critics argue that it demands extensive theoretical background, limiting its practical use for a broader audience.
• Lack of Practical Examples
  Some argue that Culler provides insufficient practical applications of his theory to a wide range of texts. This lack of illustrative critique across genres and periods can make his theoretical proposals appear detached or overly abstract.
• Potential for Ahistoricism
  Despite his intent to integrate literature with cultural history, Culler’s focus on formalist and semiological aspects risks downplaying the evolving dynamics of power, ideology, and social change that influence literary texts.
• Tensions with Reader-Response Theories
  Culler’s approach prioritizes the systemic and structural dimensions of texts over the role of the reader. This clashes with reader-response critics who emphasize the individual’s active role in constructing meaning.

Representative Quotations from “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation with Context	Theoretical Perspective
“Literary history… is not an autonomous entity but a part of the history of a culture.” (Culler 263)	Culler challenges the traditional view of literary history as an isolated field and situates it within broader cultural history. He emphasizes the interplay of literature and cultural sign systems.	Cultural History, Semiotics
“Culture itself is a set of symbolic systems which enable actions or objects to have meaning, and among these systems is that of literature.” (Culler 263)	Literature is portrayed as one of many symbolic systems that constitute culture. Culler connects literary meaning to the conventions of cultural semiotics.	Structuralism, Semiotics
“The relationship between literature and society is not one of identity of content but of homology of form.” (Culler 262)	Culler argues that literature and society are linked through shared formal structures rather than direct thematic reflection. This reframes the study of literature as an exploration of structural parallels.	Formalism, Structuralism
“The symbol strives for a fusion and a naturalness foreign to allegory.” (Culler 265)	This critiques the symbolic mode for its idealized attempt to unify form and meaning, contrasting it with the more dynamic and self-aware allegorical mode.	Critique of Romantic Symbolism
“Allegory exposes the artificiality of signification, positioning literature as a site of negotiation between form and meaning.” (Culler 267)	Culler reclaims allegory as a critical tool for highlighting the constructed nature of meaning, countering its traditional dismissal as arbitrary.	Allegory, Poststructuralism
“Rather than insert literature in other historical series external to it, one constructs a historical series around the central activity of literature.” (Culler 270)	Culler proposes that literary history should be grounded in the study of literary conventions and their evolution, rather than subordinating literature to external historical frameworks.	Formalism, Literary History
“Effet de réel… gives us no thematic material but simply produces the assurance that we are dealing with a real and detailable world.” (Culler 267-268)	Descriptive details in Flaubert’s work serve as an illusion of reality without deeper thematic content, challenging traditional symbolic interpretation.	Critique of Realism, Structuralism
“The problem which has long beset literary history… is that it has never been sufficiently formalist.” (Culler 270)	Culler critiques previous literary histories for neglecting the formal and semiological mechanisms that underpin literature, calling for a more rigorous formalist approach.	Formalism, Critique of Traditional Literary History
“The study of literary history can be seen as an attempt to trace the interaction and reciprocal transformation of semiological models.” (Culler 264)	Literary history, in Culler’s view, involves tracing how literary and cultural sign systems evolve together, reflecting mutual influences and transformations.	Structuralism, Cultural Studies
“By focusing on semiotic operations, one comes to value those which display a maximum of self-consciousness.” (Culler 270)	Culler values literary works that critically engage with their own processes of signification, advocating for self-awareness in the production of meaning.	Poststructuralism, Self-Reflexivity in Literature

Key Insights

• Structuralist Foundations: Culler builds on semiotics to explore the structural relationships between literature and culture.
• Critique of Romanticism: His re-evaluation of allegory and symbolism challenges Romantic ideals of organic unity.
• Cultural Integration: Literature is positioned within cultural systems, emphasizing reciprocal influences.
• Self-Reflexivity: Works that critique their own meaning-making processes are highlighted as exemplary in literary history.

Suggested Readings: “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology” by Jonathan Culler

1. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
2. Culler, Jonathan. “Literary History, Allegory, and Semiology.” New Literary History, vol. 7, no. 2, 1976, pp. 259–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468506. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
3. Yu, Pauline R. “Allegory, Allegoresis, and The Classic of Poetry.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, 1983, pp. 377–412. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2719105. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
4. Mirabile, Andrea. “Allegory, Pathos, and Irony: The Resistance to Benjamin in Paul de Man.” German Studies Review, vol. 35, no. 2, 2012, pp. 319–33. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23269668. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
5. Hack, Daniel. “‘Sublimation Strange’: Allegory and Authority in ‘Bleak House.’” ELH, vol. 66, no. 1, 1999, pp. 129–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032065. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

“Commentary” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in 1974 (Vol. 6, No. 1) as part of the special issue On Metaphor. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, the article critically examines metaphor through two principal frameworks: the via philosophica, which explores metaphor as intrinsic to all language and thought, and the via rhetorica, which situates metaphor as a special rhetorical device within language. Culler’s analysis delves into the paradoxes and contradictions these perspectives present, such as their mutual interdependence and the challenges they pose to coherence in linguistic and literary theory. He critiques the traditional rhetorical approach for its limitations in addressing the interpretive richness of literature, advocating for a broader perspective that encompasses the reader’s interpretative processes. Culler’s work is significant in its reorientation of metaphor studies, emphasizing the interpretive operations and open-ended nature of literary language over the reductive model of substitution. This essay remains an influential contribution to the fields of literary theory and criticism, offering insights into how metaphors shape and challenge our understanding of texts.

Summary of “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

---

---

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference in Text
Via Philosophica	A philosophical approach to metaphor that views it as intrinsic to language, emphasizing the gap between sense and reference.	p. 219-220
Via Rhetorica	A rhetorical perspective treating metaphor as a substitution between literal and figurative expressions, focusing on language’s special uses.	p. 219-220
Metaphorical Grasping	The idea that abstract thought and naming are inherently metaphorical, such as linking physical and intellectual processes through metaphor.	p. 221
Catachresis	The “forced” use of words in new contexts when no proper term exists, challenging the distinction between metaphorical and literal language.	p. 224-225
Vraisemblance	The conventions of coherence and believability in texts, shaping how readers interpret and identify metaphors.	p. 225-226
Interpretive Operations	The processes by which readers construct metaphorical meaning from textual incongruities, highlighting the interpretive act over the metaphor itself.	p. 226
Historical Space of Usure	Derrida’s notion of metaphor’s evolution over time, reflecting the “wear and tear” (usure) and accumulation of meanings in language.	p. 222
Replacement Model	A traditional view of metaphor where one term is substituted for another, often critiqued for oversimplifying literary interpretation.	p. 223-224
Open-ended Signification	The idea that literary metaphors resist fixed meanings, inviting readers to explore a range of possible interpretations.	p. 228
Metaphoric vs. Metaphor	The distinction between metaphor as a rhetorical device and the metaphoric as a conceptual tension central to Romantic and New Critical aesthetics.	p. 229
Surrealist Challenges	Examples of texts like Ashbery’s poetry, where conventional metaphorical interpretation breaks down due to the lack of vraisemblance or coherent reference.	p. 226-227
Interpretive Residue	The concept that metaphor is a byproduct of the reading process, shaped by interpretive conventions rather than intrinsic to the text itself.	p. 225-226
Semantic Trails	The pathways of meaning that literary phrases open for exploration, resisting reduction to simple metaphorical substitutions.	p. 227

Contribution of “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

---

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique Through Culler’s Commentary	Key Insight from Commentary
Shakespeare’s Sonnets	The metaphor “My love is like a red, red rose” can be analyzed as collapsing the distinction between metaphorical and literal uses of language.	The via philosophica suggests that naming and abstraction inherently involve metaphorical thinking (p. 221).
T.S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock	The line “I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each” resists direct substitution, inviting a broader interpretive exploration of its incongruity.	Metaphors in literature often resist simple replacement, functioning as “semantic trails” that open multiple interpretations (p. 227).
Dylan Thomas’ Poetry	“And there this night I walk in the white giant’s thigh” challenges coherence, requiring the reader to reconcile the phrase with the poem’s unity.	Metaphor emerges as a result of interpretive operations based on conventions of vraisemblance and coherence (p. 225-226).
John Ashbery’s They Dream Only of America	The surrealistic imagery, such as “The lake a lilac cube,” defies conventional metaphorical analysis, disrupting expectations of unity and referentiality.	Surrealist works highlight metaphor as interpretive residue, not intrinsic to the text itself (p. 226-227).

Criticism Against “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

---

---

Representative Quotations from “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Here seem essentially two ways of thinking about metaphor, which we might christen the via philosophica and the via rhetorica.”	Culler introduces the dual perspectives on metaphor. The via philosophica considers metaphor fundamental to thought and language, while the via rhetorica treats it as a rhetorical device. This framing sets the stage for his analysis of metaphor’s paradoxical nature (p. 219).
“The domain of metaphor is rent and distended by the paradoxical relationship between these two approaches.”	Highlighting the inherent contradiction in reconciling the two approaches, Culler points to the difficulty of defining metaphor as either purely philosophical or rhetorical (p. 220).
“The staple argument of the via philosophica is that abstract terms are metaphorical.”	Culler describes the via philosophica‘s central idea that even basic conceptualization and naming involve metaphorical processes, challenging the notion of a literal or proper language (p. 221).
“No statement, in short, is metaphorical in itself. We make it metaphorical when we yield to the reality principle and strive to produce an accustomed intelligibility.”	This statement underscores Culler’s interpretive stance: metaphor emerges not inherently from the text but through the reader’s effort to make sense of incongruity within conventions of coherence and vraisemblance (p. 225-226).
“The metaphorical detour is a historical space, an ambiguous space of usure (‘wear and tear’ but also ‘usury’ which adds value).”	Drawing on Derrida, Culler emphasizes metaphor’s diachronic evolution, showing how metaphors acquire and layer meanings over time, reflecting both linguistic wear and creative enrichment (p. 222).
“Surrealist works highlight metaphor as interpretive residue, not intrinsic to the text itself.”	Culler uses surrealism to argue that metaphor arises from interpretive acts and does not preexist as a stable feature of the text, illustrating how unconventional texts disrupt traditional metaphorical analysis (p. 226).
“Metaphor resists replacement operations, which is the source of literature’s power.”	This emphasizes literature’s capacity to resist definitive meanings, situating metaphor as a tool to explore multiple interpretations rather than fixed substitutions, thus enhancing its richness and complexity (p. 228).
“The resiliency of the term ‘metaphor’… may derive from the love critics bear not for metaphor but for the metaphoric.”	Culler critiques the tendency of literary criticism to focus on metaphor as a concept rather than on specific metaphors in texts, highlighting a broader aesthetic and theoretical fascination with the metaphoric (p. 229).
“Interpretation is woven in a potentially infinite process… a space of signification.”	Reflecting Peirce’s semiotics, Culler stresses the open-ended nature of interpretation, where each act of understanding generates further interpretive possibilities, making metaphor a dynamic and evolving process (p. 227).
“To call abstract terms metaphors is to say that they are not arbitrary names but motivated extensions or developments.”	This statement critiques structuralist views of linguistic arbitrariness, arguing instead for the historical and conceptual motivations behind metaphoric language, adding depth to the understanding of metaphor as a linguistic and cognitive process (p. 222).

Suggested Readings: “Commentary” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary.” New Literary History, vol. 6, no. 1, 1974, pp. 219–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468350. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
2. CULLER, JONATHAN, and Péter Csató. “AN INTERVIEW WITH JONATHAN CULLER.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), vol. 8, no. 2, 2002, pp. 58–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41274187. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
3. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
4. Culler, Jonathan. “Commentary: What Is Literature Now?” New Literary History, vol. 38, no. 1, 2007, pp. 229–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057997. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Introduction: “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

“Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi first appeared in the Summer 1992 issue of boundary 2, a journal published by Duke University Press. This article explores Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical analysis of alienation and the body within The Second Sex (1949), placing her work in conversation with broader existentialist and feminist discourses. Moi highlights Beauvoir’s nuanced understanding of women’s social and psychological conditions under patriarchy, characterized by a duality of freedom and alienation. The article is significant in both literary theory and feminist philosophy as it interrogates the metaphorical and literal dimensions of sexual difference, advocating for a dialectical understanding of Beauvoir’s contradictions and ambiguities. By situating Beauvoir’s theories alongside Hegelian dialectics and existential philosophy, Moi’s work underscores the profound intersection between ontology, gender, and social construction. This contribution continues to inform discussions on subjectivity, power dynamics, and feminist resistance in literature and beyond.

Summary of “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context in Moi’s Analysis
Ambiguity	The existential condition of being torn between freedom and immanence, inherent in all human beings.	Beauvoir argues that women experience greater ambiguity due to societal pressures and gendered expectations.
Alienation	The process by which individuals become distanced from their own freedom and transcendence.	Central to women’s psychosexual development; girls alienate themselves in their bodies under patriarchy.
Immanence	A state of passivity or confinement, contrasted with transcendence.	Women are socially cast into roles of immanence, limiting their ability to act as free subjects.
Transcendence	The capacity to project oneself beyond given conditions and act freely.	For men, transcendence is socially enabled; women struggle due to patriarchal structures.
Otherness	The condition of being defined in opposition to the “One” (typically men).	Women are socially constructed as the “Other,” denying them full subjectivity.
Patriarchal Femininity	The socially imposed identity of women as subordinate and passive.	Beauvoir analyzes this concept as the root of women’s conflict between freedom and alienation.
Psychosexual Development	The formation of sexual identity through interactions between biology, psychology, and social factors.	Moi explores how girls’ lack of a “phallic equivalent” complicates their self-perception and agency.
Narcissism	A form of alienation where the subject takes refuge in an idealized image of themselves.	Moi links narcissism to women’s struggle to reconcile alienation with their desire for autonomy.
Metaphorical Structure	The use of metaphors to connect existential ambiguity with social oppression.	Moi highlights Beauvoir’s metaphorical approach to illustrating women’s dual alienation.
Freedom	The ability to act authentically and transcend limitations.	For women, achieving freedom requires overcoming societal constraints and their own internalized alienation.
Recognition (Anerkennung)	A Hegelian concept of mutual acknowledgment between subjects.	Moi critiques Beauvoir’s application of this concept to male transcendence but not female subjectivity.
Dialectical Understanding	A method of analyzing contradictions to reveal deeper truths.	Moi praises Beauvoir’s dialectical approach to understanding the tensions in women’s social and subjective conditions.

Contribution of “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

Literary Work	Critique Through Moi’s Concepts	Key Concepts Applied
Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway	Clarissa Dalloway embodies the tension between transcendence (her desires for freedom) and immanence (domestic roles imposed by society). Her alienation from authentic freedom reflects the patriarchal femininity Beauvoir critiques (SS, 306; DSb, 27).	Ambiguity, Immanence vs. Transcendence, Alienation
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper	The narrator’s descent into madness parallels Beauvoir’s notion of alienation, where patriarchal constraints on women’s freedom lead to psychological fragmentation and self-objectification (SS, 19; DSa, 19).	Alienation, Patriarchal Femininity, Narcissism
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	Sethe’s struggle with her past and her embodied trauma mirrors Beauvoir’s idea of the body as a site of alienation and historical oppression. The absence of collective female solidarity intensifies her isolation (SS, 19; DSa, 19).	Embodiment, Lived Experience, Absence of Solidarity
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice	Elizabeth Bennet’s resistance to societal expectations exemplifies Beauvoir’s concept of women striving for transcendence in a world designed to confine them to immanence (SS, 325; DSb, 53).	Transcendence, Freedom vs. Oppression, Patriarchal Femininity

Criticism Against “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

Representative Quotations from “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The drama of woman lies in this conflict between the fundamental aspirations of every subject… and the demands of a situation which constitutes her as inessential.”	This highlights the existential conflict in women’s lives as free beings subjected to patriarchal structures that deny them autonomy and transcendence, forcing them into roles of Otherness.
“Woman, like man, is her body, but her body is something other than herself.”	Moi explains Beauvoir’s view that women experience their bodies as both a part of and separate from their identities, reflecting alienation and societal objectification.
“Narcissism is a well-defined process of alienation, in which the ego is regarded as an absolute end and the subject takes refuge from itself in it.”	Moi draws on Beauvoir’s idea that narcissism in women is a form of self-alienation, where they objectify themselves to cope with societal pressures, losing agency in the process.
“The oppression of women… mirrors or repeats the ontological ambiguity of existence.”	This metaphorical assertion links societal oppression with existential ambiguity, suggesting that women’s struggles under patriarchy are an exaggerated version of universal human conflict.
“Not having that alter ego, the little girl does not alienate herself in a material thing and cannot retrieve her integrity.”	Moi explains Beauvoir’s argument that girls’ inability to externalize and reclaim their alienation, unlike boys with the phallus, complicates their development of autonomous subjectivity.
“She sees that it is not the women, but the men who control the world. It is this revelation… which irresistibly alters her conception of herself.”	Social structures, not biological differences, shape girls’ understanding of themselves as inferior, challenging biological determinism with a focus on sociopolitical constructs.
“The delights of passivity are made to seem desirable to the young girl by parents and teachers, books and myths, women and men.”	Moi highlights Beauvoir’s view that societal conditioning from a young age enforces passivity in girls, alienating them from authentic freedom and subjectivity.
“Along with the authentic demand of the subject who wants sovereign freedom, there is… an inauthentic longing for resignation.”	Beauvoir’s idea of inauthenticity is extended to show the psychological complexities women face when navigating societal expectations and personal aspirations for autonomy.
“The specificity of women’s oppression consists precisely in the absence of a female collectivity capable of perceiving itself as a historical subject.”	Moi emphasizes Beauvoir’s argument that women’s oppression is unique due to their dispersed position in society, preventing the formation of collective identity and resistance akin to other marginalized groups.
“For women the stakes are higher; there are more victories and more defeats for them than for men.”	This quote underscores the intensified challenges and achievements for women under patriarchy, reflecting Moi’s appreciation for Beauvoir’s acknowledgment of women’s struggles and triumphs.

Suggested Readings: “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex” by Toril Moi

1. Moi, Toril. “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex.” Boundary 2, vol. 19, no. 2, 1992, pp. 96–112. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/303535. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
2. Moi, Toril. “Representation of Patriarchy: Sexuality and Epistemology in Freud’s ‘Dora.’” Feminist Review, no. 9, 1981, pp. 60–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394915. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
3. Moi, Toril. “From Femininity to Finitude: Freud, Lacan, and Feminism, Again.” Signs, vol. 29, no. 3, 2004, pp. 841–78. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/380630. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
4. Moi, Toril. “Ambiguity and Alienation in The Second Sex.” Boundary 2, vol. 19, no. 2, 1992, pp. 96–112. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/303535. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
5. MOI, TORIL. “Power, Sex and Subjectivity: Feminist Reflections on Foucault.” Paragraph, vol. 5, 1985, pp. 95–102. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43152603. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.