“History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton: Summary and Critique

“History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism’” by Judith Newton first appeared in the journal Cultural Critique, No. 9 (Spring 1988), published by the University of Minnesota Press.

"History as Usual?: Feminism and the "New Historicism" by Judith Newton: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton

“History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism’” by Judith Newton first appeared in the journal Cultural Critique, No. 9 (Spring 1988), published by the University of Minnesota Press. In this influential article, Newton interrogates the rise of the New Historicism within literary studies, critiquing its failure to account for the foundational contributions of feminist theory and feminist historiography. She challenges the marginalization of feminist scholars in the narrative of postmodern literary theory and contends that feminist criticism not only anticipated many of the assumptions later associated with New Historicism—such as the cultural construction of subjectivity and the historicity of representation—but often did so from a more politically engaged and socially transformative position. Newton argues that feminist critics had long explored how power, gender, and ideology shaped historical narratives and literary production, and she calls for a broader, more inclusive definition of New Historicism—one that integrates feminist insights and refuses the erasure of women’s intellectual labor. The essay is widely considered a key intervention in literary theory, urging scholars to recognize the political stakes of theoretical practice and to engage in more inclusive historiographies of criticism.

Summary of “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton

🔑 Key Ideas from Judith Newton’s “History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism'”

🔹 1. New Historicism’s Ambiguous Identity

  • Newton critiques the vagueness and internal contradictions in defining “new historicism,” noting it is “as marked by difference as by sameness” (Newton, 1988, p. 87).
  • She asks whether it’s “a unique and hot commodity” or simply a “set of widely held, loosely ‘postmodernist’ assumptions” (p. 87).

🔹 2. Core Assumptions of New Historicism

  • Practitioners assume “no transhistorical or universal human essence,” with subjectivity “constructed by cultural codes” (p. 88).
  • Representations are not neutral; they “make things happen” by “shaping human consciousness” (p. 89).

🔹 3. Feminist Scholarship’s Exclusion from New Historicist Narratives

  • Newton criticizes how feminist contributions have been omitted from histories of theory and new historicism, despite feminist theory’s foundational role (p. 91).
  • Feminists “have sometimes participated in this erasure of their own intellectual traditions” (p. 92).

🔹 4. Feminist Origins of Postmodern Assumptions

  • Feminist thought contributed to “postmodernist” critiques before French theory was widely embraced, often rooted in “personal change and commitment” (p. 94).
  • These ideas, rooted in activism and experience, fostered a “sense of political possibilities” (p. 94).

🔹 5. Feminist Rearticulation of Theory

  • Feminist theorists developed distinctive takes on objectivity, proposing “situated and embodied knowledges” over relativism (p. 98).
  • They aim for “webs of connection, called solidarity in politics and shared conversation in epistemology” (p. 99).

🔹 6. Feminist History and the Redefinition of “History”

  • “New Women’s History” foregrounded the role of women as agents in history, challenging the public/private binary and masculinist historiography (p. 100).
  • Feminist historians revealed how “gender relations and gender struggle” shaped historical developments, often predating Foucault (p. 101).

🔹 7. Feminist Literary Criticism as Historical Practice

  • Feminist critics “situate literature in relation to history,” treating representation as “political” and deeply intertwined with gendered power (p. 104).
  • Historical readings by feminist literary scholars often emphasize “materialist” and interdisciplinary strategies (p. 105).

🔹 8. Gender as Central to Understanding Power

  • Feminist work redefines power not only as dominance but also “power in disguise,” such as resistance, silence, and emotional labor (p. 102).
  • This insight reframes power dynamics traditionally overlooked by male-centered models.

🔹 9. Feminism’s Potential to Transform New Historicism

  • Newton proposes that “materialist feminist literary/historical practice” yields a richer, more nuanced understanding of history and subjectivity (p. 117).
  • She argues for greater collaboration between feminists and cultural materialists to deepen historical analysis (p. 120).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
🌟 Term/Concept📖 Explanation🔍 Usage in the Article
🌀 New HistoricismA literary-critical movement that sees literature as embedded within cultural, social, and political discourses.Newton explores whether it is a unified school or a broad set of postmodernist strategies. She critiques its emerging orthodoxy and exclusion of feminist histories.
♀️ Feminist TheoryCritical approaches grounded in the analysis of gender inequality and the representation of women.Newton insists feminist theory shaped “postmodern” assumptions and calls out its omission in new historicist narratives.
🧠 SubjectivityThe ways in which individuals are shaped by and internalize cultural codes and social norms.Feminism brought focus to how women’s subjectivity is constructed differently and often invisibly in history.
📜 PostmodernismA skeptical, anti-essentialist stance toward grand narratives, objectivity, and fixed meanings.Newton aligns feminist critique with postmodernist assumptions but argues for feminism’s distinct articulation.
🧱 Cultural MaterialismA British form of Marxist literary criticism that views literature as a material product of culture and ideology.Mentioned as a cousin to new historicism; Newton emphasizes feminism’s deeper roots and more intersectional critique.
🔄 Cross-cultural MontageJuxtaposition of literary and non-literary texts to reveal ideological interrelations.Newton shows how feminists had already been doing this with diaries, manuals, legal records, etc., before new historicism labeled it.
📚 RepresentationThe depiction or construction of reality through language, images, or discourse.Newton insists that representation has material consequences and is a site of ideological struggle.
💬 Hegemonic IdeologyDominant worldviews that naturalize power structures.Newton critiques how non-feminist new historicism overemphasizes hegemony, underplaying resistance and female agency.
🔥 Social Change & AgencyThe potential for individuals or groups to transform society.Central to Newton’s feminist critique — she shows how feminism models social change and not just cultural reproduction.
🚪 MarginalizationThe social process of relegating groups to the edge of cultural, political, or academic discourse.Newton critiques how feminist work has been marginalized in academic histories of theory like deconstruction and new historicism.

Contribution of “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton to Literary Theory/Theories

1. 📚 New Historicism

📌 Contribution:
Newton critiques the notion that New Historicism is a neutral or revolutionary academic practice. She shows how it marginalizes feminist contributions, portraying it as a male-dominated project that reinvents ideas feminists were already working with.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Histories of the ‘new historicism’ are beginning to remind me of…deconstructive thought…even the most current histories represent feminist theory as the simple receptor of seminal influence…” (p. 91)

📌 Impact:
Newton challenges the disciplinary canonization of New Historicism, calling for a broader, intersectional approach that includes gender and feminist labor. She insists feminist work should not be retroactively appropriated into male-defined theoretical traditions.


2. ♀️ Feminist Literary Criticism

📌 Contribution:
Newton defends and repositions feminist criticism as not only responsive but foundational to theoretical developments. She positions it as a producer of theory, especially around subjectivity, power, and representation.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Feminist theorizing of the ‘post-modern’ variety has been part of the Women’s Movement from the beginning.” (p. 94)

📌 Impact:
She articulates a feminist historicism that emphasizes experience, situated knowledge, and personal-political engagement, challenging the idea that feminist theory is derivative of deconstruction or postmodernism.


3. 📖 Postmodernism

📌 Contribution:
Newton critiques postmodernism’s tendency toward relativism and depoliticization, showing how feminists developed postmodern ideas (e.g., the critique of objectivity, constructed subjectivity) through lived experience and political urgency.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Feminist challenges to the notion of ‘objectivity’ have not usually led to relativism… but rather to defining a ‘feminist version of objectivity’—situated and embodied knowledges…” (p. 98)

📌 Impact:
Newton offers a version of politicized postmodernism, grounding theoretical abstraction in feminist and activist contexts. She promotes epistemological alternatives rooted in accountability and partial perspective (à la Haraway, Harding).


4. 📕 Cultural Materialism

📌 Contribution:
While cultural materialism and New Historicism are typically linked, Newton shows how materialist feminist criticism shares common assumptions but articulates them differently—especially in recognizing women’s labor, agency, and discursive contributions.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Although materialist feminist criticism has drawn heavily on Marxist and cultural materialist theory… it may still be differentiated… by the degree to which it takes gender as an organizing category in ‘history.’” (p. 106)

📌 Impact:
She positions materialist feminism as a distinctive critical formation, not to be absorbed under male-defined theories. She emphasizes the intersection of gender and class in ways cultural materialism alone often neglects.


5. 🧩 Reader-Response and Psychoanalytic Theories

📌 Contribution:
Newton doesn’t engage directly with these, but she implies their limitations by contrasting them with feminist historicism’s focus on experience, community, and material history, over textual play or personal introspection.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“What is theory, after all, ‘good’ for?” she asks rhetorically, insisting theory should serve political and communal purposes (p. 96)

📌 Impact:
Her perspective aligns more with object-relations feminist theory (e.g., Chodorow, Gilligan), as she encourages literary historians to consider emotional and material conditions shaping subjectivity and representation (p. 120).


🧱 Summary: Key Contributions

📌 Theory🚀 Newton’s Contribution
New HistoricismCritiques male dominance, calls for feminist inclusion and restructuring
Feminist CriticismCenters feminist theory as original, radical, and epistemologically unique
PostmodernismAdvocates for politicized, situated knowledge over relativist detachment
Cultural MaterialismInsists on gender as a structural, historical analytic often ignored by class-based models
Psychoanalysis (implied)Prefers feminist-materialist notions of the self over textual or personal abstraction
Examples of Critiques Through “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
📚 Literary Work📝 Critique Through Newton’s Lens🧠 Theoretical Frame🌈 Symbolic Marker
🏰 Condition of England Novels (e.g., Mary Barton, North and South)These novels reflect a paradoxical Victorian ideology: portraying working-class suffering while reinscribing patriarchal domesticity. Newton notes their public/private binary reproduces gendered power.New Historicism + Feminist Critique of Domestic Ideology⚖️ Public vs Private
👑 Victorian Women’s Manuals (e.g., The Book of Household Management by Mrs. Beeton)Manuals promote domestic ideology from a female-authored, moralizing voice, showing how women contributed to hegemonic power while also resisting it subtly. Newton highlights their agency within containment.Cultural Materialism + Materialist Feminism🧵 Gendered Agency
💉 Medical Discourse & Birth Debates (e.g., chloroform in childbirth debates)Newton (via Poovey) critiques how male-dominated scientific texts pathologized women’s bodies while excluding women’s voices, illustrating epistemic violence through “objective” discourse.Postmodern Feminism + Situated Knowledge💊 Power of Representation
🧚‍♀️ Victorian Governess Novels (e.g., Jane Eyre)Newton shows how these novels represent gender-class intersectionality, as women navigate public labor while performing femininity. Feminist historicism reveals the contradictions of subjecthood.Feminist Historicism + Class/Gender Critique🎭 Multiple Identities

📌 Key Concepts Across All:
  • Representation has material consequences 🧠
  • Gender and class must be analyzed intersectionally 🎯
  • Women were both subject to and producers of ideology 🔄
  • Private/domestic spheres were politically charged 🏠

Criticism Against “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton

Overemphasis on Feminist Contribution as Original

Some critics argue that Newton overclaims the uniqueness of feminist theory, suggesting feminists were the first to introduce postmodern insights (like the constructed subject) when these were also present in other theoretical traditions like post-structuralism and Marxism.
→ Critique: Exaggeration of feminist “primacy” in theory development.


🔍 Selective Reading of New Historicism

Newton tends to highlight the male dominance in New Historicism, but critics suggest she downplays the diversity within the field, including scholars like Jean Howard, who also engage feminist concerns.
→ Critique: Unfair generalization of “new historicists” as gender-blind.

📘 Symbol: 📖 Partial Scope


📏 Not Enough Empirical Engagement

While Newton critiques others for ignoring feminist scholarship, she herself is seen as insufficiently grounded in historical primary texts in parts of her analysis, relying heavily on secondary commentary.
→ Critique: More rhetorical than evidentiary in some places.

📘 Symbol: 📉 Light on Data


🧩 Theory Over Accessibility

Though Newton advocates valuing feminist labor and accessibility, parts of her own work remain densely theoretical. Critics find this in tension with her call for clarity and solidarity among feminist theorists.
→ Critique: Calls for inclusivity yet adopts academic jargon.

📘 Symbol: 🌀 Theory vs Praxis


⚖️ Binary Framing of Feminism vs New Historicism

Some readers argue that Newton frames feminism and New Historicism as mutually exclusive or antagonistic, missing opportunities to emphasize synergies and hybrid approaches.
→ Critique: False dichotomy weakens nuanced collaboration.

📘 Symbol: ⚔️ Unnecessary Polarization


📚 Neglect of Non-Western Feminist Historicism

The essay largely centers American and British feminist discourse, with little mention of postcolonial or global feminist voices. Critics see this as a missed opportunity to de-center Western theory.
→ Critique: Limited geographical inclusivity.

📘 Symbol: 🌍 Western-Centric Lens


🎭 Idealization of Feminist Theory’s Internal Diversity

While Newton rightly emphasizes feminist theory’s heterogeneity, some argue she idealizes feminist unity and underplays internal conflicts (e.g., between radical, liberal, and postmodern feminists).
→ Critique: Glossing over feminist ideological tensions.

📘 Symbol: 🧵 Over-unity

Representative Quotations from “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton with Explanation
📘 Quotation 🌈 Explanation
🔍 “Feminists… have sometimes participated in this erasure of their own intellectual traditions.”Newton critiques how feminists at times accepted marginal positions, contributing to their own invisibility.
🌟 “She who writes history makes history… speaking from somewhere other than the margins.”A powerful call for feminist scholars to claim intellectual authority rather than remain peripheral.
📚 “‘New historicism’… comes out of the new left… but barely alluded to… are the mother roots—the women’s movement.”She exposes the absence of feminism in standard narratives about the rise of New Historicism.
🧬 “Feminist theory… womb containing the ‘seeds’ of deconstructive thought… those ‘seeds’ were really ovum all along.”Newton flips metaphors to assert that feminist theory wasn’t derivative—it was generative.
🗺️ “Writing feminist theory and scholarship into the histories… may mean participating in the definition of what ‘new historicism’ is going to mean.”Feminist scholars must actively shape academic movements and definitions.
🔥 “It was our passion that put these matters first on the theoretical agenda.”Feminist theory is driven by real-world urgency and emotional truth—not abstract detachment.
“Feminists had their own break with totalizing theories… Anger is more like it.”Feminists rejected male-dominated grand narratives with righteous rage and a hunger for change.
👩‍🔬 “Women’s theoretical labor seemed part of life and therefore not like ‘real’… male—theoretical labor at all.”Feminist contributions were undervalued because they didn’t conform to academic (i.e., male) standards.
🧩 “Middle-class ideology is implicitly challenged… but internally it is fairly stable…”Ignoring gender flattens complexity—ideologies appear more stable than they are.
🌱 “Perhaps their labels by now may be wearing thin… Perhaps… their new history is no longer new… and it is no longer—history as usual.”Newton envisions a future where feminist theory is integrated into the norm—not treated as a novelty.
Suggested Readings: “History as Usual?: Feminism and the “New Historicism” by Judith Newton
  1. Newton, Judith. “History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism.’” Cultural Critique, no. 9, 1988, pp. 87–121. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354235. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
  2. Newton, Judith. “History as Usual?: Feminism and the New Historicism.” Starting Over: Feminism and the Politics of Cultural Critique, University of Michigan Press, 1994, pp. 27–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.10109.6. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
  3. Dimock, Wai-Chee. “Feminism, New Historicism, and the Reader.” American Literature, vol. 63, no. 4, 1991, pp. 601–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2926870. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
  4. Harpham, Geoffrey Galt. “Foucault and the New Historicism.” American Literary History, vol. 3, no. 2, 1991, pp. 360–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/490057. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.

“Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy: Summary and Critique

“Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy first appeared in Medien Journal in its 14th year, issue 3 of 1988.

"Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies" by Thomas S. McCoy: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy

“Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy first appeared in Medien Journal in its 14th year, issue 3 of 1988. This article holds a significant position in the intersection of literary theory and cultural studies by reframing the relationship between power, ideology, and discourse through the lens of Michel Foucault’s theoretical insights. McCoy argues that Foucault’s conceptualization of power—understood not as solely repressive but productive, relational, and pervasive—offers a potent supplement to the ideological critiques that dominate the cultural studies tradition exemplified by figures such as Stuart Hall. Unlike Hall, who places ideology at the center of cultural analysis, Foucault resists this framework, focusing instead on how discursive formations shape subjectivity and produce regimes of truth. McCoy traces the implications of Foucault’s theories for understanding mass media, particularly television, as instruments not only of representation but of social normalization and discipline. By invoking Foucault’s concepts of biopower, surveillance, and the rejection of the “repressive hypothesis,” McCoy demonstrates how media subtly regulate behavior and reinforce hegemonic norms under the guise of entertainment and information. The article is essential in literary and media theory for advocating a Foucauldian shift from ideological interpretation to an analysis of discursive power, illuminating how media discourse constitutes social reality and subject positions. As such, McCoy’s work marks a critical moment where Foucault’s post-structuralist thought is methodically integrated into Anglo-American cultural studies, reshaping debates on power, representation, and social control.

Summary of “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy

🔄 Power as Productive, Not Merely Repressive

Foucault redefines power beyond the classical repressive model, emphasizing its productive and relational nature.

“Power is productive as well as coercive, situational as well as pervasive” (McCoy, 1988, p. 71).
“Foucault examines the workings of power through local, ‘micro-processes’… producing regimes of truth that pervade society” (p. 71).


📺 Media as a Vehicle of Power/Knowledge

Mass media—especially television—do not merely reflect society, but actively shape discursive norms and subjectivity.

“Television presents carefully structured, strategically shaded versions of social life… enculturating viewers to values and norms” (p. 71).
“The media shape public discourse… in accord with Foucault’s conception of power-knowledge” (p. 71).


🧠 Critique of Ideology: Hall vs. Foucault

While Stuart Hall grounds cultural studies in ideology, Foucault sidesteps ideology in favor of discursive formations and subject production.

“Hall emphasizes the centrality of ideology. Foucault leaves ideology alone” (p. 71).
“Foucault does not primarily concern himself… with blocs of ideas… he is concerned with power” (p. 71).


🧩 Normalization Over Repression

Foucault replaces the “repressive hypothesis” with a more nuanced concept of normalization as a subtle and pervasive form of control.

“He advances a conception of social discipline as a productive, complex social function” (p. 71).
“Normalization took place, values and morals emerged… to structure the tactics” (p. 79).


🧍 Power and the Formation of the Subject

Foucault’s theory shifts the focus from the autonomous subject to one produced by power relations and discursive practices.

“The individual… is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces” (Foucault 1980d, cited in McCoy, p. 74).
“It is not power, but the subject, which is the general theme of my research” (Foucault 1983: 209; p. 75).


🧬 Biopower and the Materiality of Control

Biopower represents the subtle embedding of power into institutions, bodies, and routines to regulate populations and produce docile subjects.

“Bio-power… structuring and educating individuals to facilitate the order of things” (p. 78).
“The great fantasy is… a social body constituted by the universality of wills. [Instead, it is] the materiality of power operating on the very bodies of individuals” (Foucault 1980d: 55; p. 79).


🎥 Cultivation and Surveillance through Television

Television functions as a disciplinary device, teaching norms through ritual and dramatization, subtly reinforcing hegemony.

“Television extends the legitimacy of the social formation… through ritual” (Gerbner & Gross, 1976, cited in McCoy, p. 85).
“Heavy viewers… are more likely… to call themselves moderate, but hold… conservative positions” (Gerbner et al., 1982; p. 86).


🧾 Reframing Hegemony Beyond the State

Foucault decentralizes power, moving away from state-centric models and focusing on dispersed networks and capillary processes.

“Foucault attempts to outflank… the State/civil distinction. He locates social discipline and regulation as practices evoking power-knowledge relations” (p. 74).
“There seems to me no necessity to postulate the State as the locus for condensing various social practices” (p. 74).


🔍 Power-Communication Distinction

Power must be distinguished from communication—it structures what can be said, not merely how it is said.

“It becomes necessary also to distinguish power relations from relationships of communication… language, signs or symbolic mediums” (Foucault 1983: 217; p. 78).
“Power works its way intentionally but anonymously… systematic and self-generative” (p. 75).


🔗 Media and ‘Thinkable Thought’

Mass media in liberal democracies structure what is publicly debatable, creating boundaries around acceptable discourse.

“Mass media order society’s discourses by structuring the thresholds of thinkable thought” (p. 88).
“Within public discourse, Chomsky locates a ‘framework for possible thought’” (Chomsky, 1985; p. 82).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy
🧠 Theoretical Term📖 Usage in the Article
⚖️ HegemonyA central term drawn from Gramsci and developed by Hall to describe the cultural dominance of ruling classes. McCoy explains that hegemony functions not through force but by shaping norms: “Hegemony is the process by which a historical bloc of social forces is constructed and the ascendancy of that bloc secured” (p. 72).
🔁 Power/KnowledgeA foundational Foucauldian concept that power and knowledge are mutually reinforcing. McCoy writes: “Knowing is perhaps power’s corporeality… Power is made for cutting” (p. 75).
🔬 Micro-processes of PowerFoucault emphasizes small, localized power mechanisms embedded in institutions: “Foucault examines the workings of power through local, ‘micro-processes’… producing regimes of truth” (p. 71).
🧱 DiscourseLanguage, practices, and representations that construct meaning and organize social life. The media operate as a discursive field: “The politics of signification take place largely through the media” (p. 72).
🧩 NormalizationThe process through which norms are internalized, producing docile subjects: “Normalization took place… values and morals emerged to treat or structure the tactics” (p. 79).
🧍 SubjectivityFoucault rejects the autonomous subject, arguing the self is produced by power relations: “The individual… is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies…” (Foucault 1980d, p. 74).
📡 SurveillanceDrawn from Foucault’s Panopticon, surveillance is key in social control: “The all-seeing, controlling model of the ‘Panopticon’ formed the bedrock for the social disciplines” (p. 81).
🧪 Disciplinary SocietyInstitutions (schools, prisons, media) that manage individuals through observation and regulation: “Their aim is not to understand human beings… but to control them” (p. 81).
🧬 BiopowerRefers to modern strategies of regulating life and populations: “Bio-power works by motivating the management of life through… disciplines and regulatory controls” (p. 79).
🧠 IdeologyCentral for Hall, contested by Foucault. Hall sees ideology as shaping consciousness, while Foucault focuses on discursive practices instead: “Hall emphasizes the centrality of ideology. Foucault leaves ideology alone” (p. 71).
🧷 ArticulationA concept used by Hall to link ideological elements. Foucault doesn’t use the term, but McCoy notes: “He simply does not situate it on ideological terrain” (p. 74).
💭 Repressive HypothesisFoucault critiques the notion that power represses and truth liberates: “Foucault labels the repressive hypothesis… and replaces it with normalization and discipline” (p. 76).
🌀 PluralismFoucault’s methodological approach, rejecting totalizing theory: “Foucault is a pluralist… His critical pluralism avoids totality” (p. 73).
🛠️ Technologies of the SelfTechniques through which individuals shape their identities, often influenced by institutional discourses (p. 81).
🪞 Regimes of TruthSystems of discursive legitimacy that organize what is accepted as true: “Producing regimes of truth that pervade society” (p. 71).
Contribution of “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy to Literary Theory/Theories

🎭 Contribution to Cultural Studies and Ideology Critique (Hall, Gramsci)

  • 📌 Bridges Foucault and Hall: McCoy positions Foucault’s ideas as a complement, not an opposition, to cultural studies:
    “While Hall and Foucault by no means trace the same territory… their approaches are not mutually exclusive” (p. 71).
  • 📚 Extends the concept of hegemony: He elaborates on Gramsci’s and Hall’s concepts by introducing Foucault’s focus on discipline and normalization as additional mechanisms:
    “Ideology organizes social experience… signification formulates socially advantageous outlooks… that uphold hegemony” (p. 72).
  • 🧠 Challenges totalizing ideology-based frameworks: McCoy suggests that ideology alone cannot explain contemporary power:
    “Foucault… simply does not situate it on ideological terrain” (p. 74).

🌀 Contribution to Poststructuralist and Foucauldian Literary Theory

  • 🔍 Centers Power/Knowledge in cultural analysis: McCoy reinforces that knowledge is not neutral, but structured by power:
    “Knowing is perhaps power’s corporeality… Power is made for cutting” (p. 75).
  • 🧩 Proposes discourse as a critical method: Instead of ideology, Foucault introduces discursive formations as sites of meaning production:
    “Foucault examines… discursive formations producing regimes of truth that pervade society” (p. 71).
  • 🧬 Rejects the “Repressive Hypothesis”: He critiques theories that equate power only with repression, expanding literary theory’s approach to subjectivity:
    “He advances a conception of social discipline as a productive, complex social function” (p. 71).

🪞 Contribution to Theories of the Subject and Identity

  • 🧍 Decenters the Cartesian subject: Foucault, through McCoy’s lens, redefines the subject as a construct of power relations:
    “The individual, with his identity and characteristics, is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies…” (Foucault 1980d, p. 74).
  • 🪡 Supports theories of subjectivation: The article integrates “technologies of the self” with cultural critique, applicable to literary depictions of identity:
    “Discursive practices, tactics and strategies influence development… yet again, no one plans such developments” (p. 77).

📺 Contribution to Media Theory and Cultural Criticism

  • 🧠 Applies Foucauldian power to mass media: McCoy brings Foucault into media theory, a move not fully taken by Foucault himself:
    “The media affect the formations of discourse… strategically shaded versions of social life” (p. 71).
  • 📡 Frames media as disciplinary apparatus: The media are shown to be central in forming docile subjects:
    “Television… aids in the production, as well as the reproduction, of social discipline” (p. 71).
  • 🧪 Aligns with Gerbner’s cultivation analysis: This empirical angle demonstrates how media enculturate values, echoing Foucault’s “docile bodies”:
    “Television cultivates common perspectives… enculturating viewers to norms” (p. 86).

⚖️ Contribution to Political Theory and Literary Representations of the State

  • 🧱 Deconstructs the State as a totalizing force: McCoy, through Foucault, moves beyond Althusser’s structural model of the state:
    “There seems… no necessity to postulate the State as the locus for condensing various social practices” (p. 74).
  • 🧷 Reveals the State’s subtle normalization strategies: The article argues that power in liberal democracies is not always coercive but operates through norms and discourse:
    “Normalization has taken precedence over the coercive legal apparatus” (p. 80).

🧠 Epistemological Impact on Literary and Communication Theory

  • 📖 Redefines truth as constructed: Foucault undermines traditional humanist ideas of literary “truth” or authorial intention:
    “The real problem lies not in the idea that humanity progresses, but in what fashion have events unfolded…” (p. 77).
  • 🗂️ Connects narrative structures to power networks: The article supports analyses of literature and media that trace power’s distribution rather than fixed meanings:
    “Power relations, not power itself, form the field of analysis” (Foucault 1983, p. 78).
Examples of Critiques Through “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy

📚 Literary Work🔍 Foucauldian Focus (via McCoy)💬 Quotation from McCoy
📖 1984 by George OrwellSurveillance and normalization as instruments of state power. Thought and language are controlled by institutions to maintain social discipline.“The media shape public discourse… strategically shaded versions of social life… aid in the production, as well as the reproduction, of social discipline” (p. 71).
📖 The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret AtwoodBiopower and the regulation of bodies, gender roles, and reproductive control reflect McCoy’s focus on power/knowledge shaping individual subjectivity.“Bio-power works by motivating the management of life through the polar activities of disciplines and regulatory controls” (p. 79).
📖 Brave New World by Aldous HuxleyDiscipline masked by pleasure and consumer culture. Norms are produced through entertainment and media, not through overt coercion.“Television presents rules of power through programs… enculturating viewers to values and norms useful to the development of ‘docile’ individuals” (p. 71, 85).
📖 The Trial by Franz KafkaMicro-processes of power and bureaucratic normalization obscure the individual’s understanding of their position within systemic power.“Power does not simply seize upon one’s mind… the individual is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires” (p. 74).
Criticism Against “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy

🔻 ⚖️ Overreliance on Foucault’s Perspective
McCoy privileges Foucault’s framework at the expense of other valid critical approaches.

“Foucault remained agnostic with regard to formations of class struggle… the truth of discursive relations is not of primary import” (p. 73).
This detachment can appear dismissive of the material consequences of class and economic inequalities.


🔻 🧩 Lack of Theoretical Synthesis with Stuart Hall
Although McCoy compares Hall and Foucault, he doesn’t fully resolve their theoretical incompatibilities.

“Hall chides Foucault for his emphasis on difference over unity” (p. 73).
Hall’s holistic emphasis on ideology is never fully reconciled with Foucault’s pluralist model.


🔻 🔍 Ambiguity in Application to Media
McCoy stretches Foucault’s ideas to mass media without Foucault having directly addressed them.

“While Foucault researched… he did not write about mass communication. Yet his method appears applicable to communication study…” (p. 75).
This interpretive leap can be critiqued as speculative and lacking empirical grounding.


🔻 📉 Limited Engagement with Counter-Arguments
The article doesn’t fully engage critics of Foucault who emphasize collective agency or emancipatory politics.

“He does not accept the analysis of critical theory… nor especially with those who argue that the truth will free us” (p. 73).
Such dismissal may ignore the liberatory potential within traditional Marxist or postcolonial critiques.


🔻 🧠 Neglect of Subjective Experience
Foucault’s rejection of the Cartesian subject, though discussed, overlooks the importance of lived, affective experience in cultural studies.

“The individual… is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces” (p. 74).
This mechanistic model of subject formation might underplay personal agency and resistance.


🔻 📡 Generalization of Media Function
McCoy arguably treats television and media as monolithic instruments of hegemony.

“Television presents rules of power through programs that portray what befalls people who violate those rules…” (p. 85).
This risks ignoring the multiplicity and contestation within media audiences and texts.

Representative Quotations from “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy with Explanation
🌟 Quotation💡 Explanation
“Power is made for cutting.” (Foucault 1984a)Power is not merely repressive but active and strategic; it divides, organizes, and structures society.
“The individual, with his identity and characteristics, is the product of a relation of power…” (1980d: 74)Foucault dismantles the notion of a fixed self; identity is shaped through power acting upon the body and social practices.
“Television presents carefully structured, strategically shaded versions of social life.” (McCoy, p.71)Mass media construct reality by presenting normative content that supports hegemonic ideologies.
“Power does not work only as repression, but displays multiform productive aspects as well.” (1980f)Power also enables: it creates discourses, norms, knowledge systems, and identities—not just oppression.
“The prison was meant to be an instrument… comparable with the school, the barracks or the hospital…” (1980c: 40)Institutions share techniques of control—disciplinary power operates through subtle, systematic normalization.
“It is both much more and much less than ideology. It is the production of effective instruments…” (1980e: 102)Power exceeds ideology by acting through techniques, apparatuses, and administrative systems that shape conduct.
“Knowledge is not primarily a product of understanding. Inextricably imbued with power…” (McCoy, p.75)Knowledge is never neutral; it emerges within power relations and reinforces structures of control.
“Public discourse is formed, to a significant extent, by discourse as presented in the media.” (McCoy, p.82)Media do not merely reflect reality—they manufacture the terms and limits of public debate and knowledge.
“Normalization took place, values and morals emerged to treat or structure the tactics.” (McCoy, p.79)Norms arise from practices and discourses, forming strategies of social control that appear natural.
“The media structure the public discourse by creating forms of truth telling…” (Postman 1985, in McCoy)Media shape how society defines truth, legitimacy, and credibility—often through entertainment-based narratives.
Suggested Readings: “Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy
  1. McCoy, Thomas S. “Hegemony, power, media: Foucault and cultural studies.” (1988): 71-90.
  2. Behlman, Lee. “From Ancient to Victorian Cultural Studies: Assessing Foucault.” Victorian Poetry, vol. 41, no. 4, 2003, pp. 559–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007031. Accessed 7 Apr. 2025.
  3. Beverley, John. “Cultural Studies.” Latin American Literary Review, vol. 20, no. 40, 1992, pp. 19–22. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20119618. Accessed 7 Apr. 2025.
  4. Morris, Gay. “Dance Studies/Cultural Studies.” Dance Research Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 2009, pp. 82–100. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20527625. Accessed 7 Apr. 2025.

“Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess: Summary and Critique

“Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess first appeared in the Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies in 2006 (Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 201–214), and was published online on January 19, 2007, by Routledge.

"Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling" by Jean Burgess: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess

“Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess first appeared in the Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies in 2006 (Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 201–214), and was published online on January 19, 2007, by Routledge. As a pivotal contribution to cultural studies and media theory, the article explores how digital storytelling—a form where ordinary people produce short autobiographical films—redefines participation, creativity, and agency in the age of networked media. Burgess critiques celebratory narratives of user empowerment and “creative consumers,” arguing instead for a more grounded approach centered on vernacular creativity: creative practices that emerge from non-elite, everyday cultural contexts. This notion challenges the elitist dichotomy between high art and amateur production and emphasizes the dignity and affective power of ordinary voices. Situating digital storytelling as both a media form and a site of democratic participation, Burgess bridges critical theory with participatory practice, revealing how affective presence, sincerity, and self-representation reshape the politics of voice, access, and cultural legitimacy in new media. Her work continues to resonate in literary theory and cultural studies for its call to “listen” rather than theorize over the everyday stories that lie at the margins of dominant cultural production.

Summary of “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess

🎤 🌍 Amplifying the Ordinary Voice: A Cultural Studies Imperative

Jean Burgess opens by affirming that cultural studies must engage seriously with everyday or amateur media production, particularly as digital tools allow ordinary individuals to express themselves (Burgess, 2006, p. 201). She notes that these expressions, often dismissed as marginal or trivial, are deeply political and cultural acts:
🔹 “Recent developments in the uses of new media have ethical and methodological implications for cultural studies” (p. 201).


💻 🎨 Vernacular Creativity: Redefining Cultural Production

Burgess introduces vernacular creativity as a concept that describes how people remix everyday language and cultural forms into creative expressions rooted in non-elite, lived experience.
🔹 She states that it “illuminates creative practices that emerge from highly particular and non-elite social contexts” (p. 206).
🔹 Unlike elitist definitions of creativity, this perspective centers on “recombining available cultural resources in ways that are both familiar and innovative” (p. 206).


📸 🌀 Cultural Participation vs. Commodification

While the rise of user-generated content and blogging may suggest empowerment, Burgess is cautious. She critiques overly celebratory views that digital tools alone ensure democracy.
🔹 She writes, “The mere fact of productivity in itself is not sufficient grounds for celebration… we must also ask ‘who is heard, and to what end?'” (p. 203).
🔹 Platforms like lomography and camgirls are explored as aestheticized spaces that may look subversive but often reinforce capitalist structures (p. 204).


📢 🌈 Digital Storytelling: Participatory, Personal, Powerful

Burgess explores digital storytelling—short, autobiographical video stories—as an example of vernacular creativity in action. Unlike mainstream media, these stories highlight personal experiences with sincerity and warmth.
🔹 She asserts that digital stories allow for “relatively autonomous and worthwhile contributions to public culture” (p. 207).
🔹 Their power lies not in technical sophistication, but in how they “prioritize narrative accessibility, warmth, and presence” (p. 207).


🧑🎓 👂 Listening to, Not Interpreting Over, Ordinary Voices

Cultural studies, Burgess argues, must stop speaking over people and start listening.
🔹 Referring to Jenny’s story—a young mother who found new purpose through education—Burgess writes, “When I stop and look at where my life is today, I know they were wrong” (p. 208), showing how personal narrative can challenge social stigmas.
🔹 Burgess critiques theorists who reduce people to symbolic texts: “Too often, ‘the people’ are reduced to ‘the textually delegated, allegorical emblem of the critic’s own activity'” (Morris, 1990, p. 23; cited on p. 209).


🧵 💞 Emotional Authenticity: The ‘I-Voice’ of Digital Stories

Digital storytelling emphasizes the voice—literally—as central to authenticity and empathy.
🔹 Burgess uses Chion’s concept of the “I-voice”—a voice both deeply internal and universally present—as a metaphor for this form’s affective power (Chion, 1990, p. 79; cited on p. 210).
🔹 These stories “recapture the warmth of human intimacy from the imperative of innovation” (p. 210).


🎓 📚 Everyday Literacies as Cultural Capital

Digital storytelling is built on vernacular literacies, not formal artistic training.
🔹 Participants use intuitive skills like “scrapbooking, storytelling, arranging photos, and layering voiceovers” learned from daily life (p. 209).
🔹 These literacies bridge “formal and informal learning”, fostering confidence among marginalized voices (p. 209).


📈 📡 Democratization Without Illusion

Though digital storytelling opens access, Burgess remains aware of its limits. Institutional control and stylistic norms can shape and constrain these stories.
🔹 She acknowledges, “Distribution channels… are frequently under the control of the institutions that provided the workshops” (p. 209).
🔹 Yet, for many, “without additional support, they may never use a computer at all” (p. 209), underscoring the critical importance of support infrastructures.


💬 🫂 Universal Themes, Specific Lives

Burgess concludes that while digital stories may use universal themes—love, hope, loss—their particularity is what makes them powerful.
🔹 These stories offer “a means of ‘becoming real’ to others, on the basis of shared experience and affective resonances” (Peters, 1999, p. 225; cited on p. 210).
🔹 “If we are working within a politics of participation, we need to learn to listen to these autobiographical narratives” (p. 211).


🔚 🎯 Final Reflection: A Call for Cultural Empathy

Ultimately, Burgess insists that cultural studies must shift from interpreting to supporting and amplifying the voices of those previously unheard.
🔹 “The task for cultural studies is not to speak heroically on behalf of ordinary voices but to find ways to understand and practically engage with the full diversity… in which they are, or are not, being heard” (p. 211).


Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess
🌈 Concept / Term📖 Definition / Explanation🔗 Reference in Article
🗣️ Vernacular CreativityDescribes creative practices emerging from non-elite, everyday contexts using local, familiar cultural codes. Challenges high-culture notions of creativity.“Creative practices that emerge from highly particular and non-elite social contexts” (p. 206)
🧑‍🎤 Creative ConsumerA figure associated with the participatory media landscape who not only consumes but also creates, reshaping media culture.“The figure of the ‘creative consumer’… is seen as both a key to the new economy…” (p. 201)
🌐 Digital StorytellingA participatory media form where ordinary people create short autobiographical films using digital tools.“A workshop-based process by which ‘ordinary people’ create their own short autobiographical films…” (p. 207)
🧩 Democratization of TechnologyThe idea that access to media tools empowers ordinary users; critiqued for assuming equality where structural barriers still exist.“We must also ask ‘who is heard, and to what end?'” (p. 203)
🔄 RemediationTransformation of older media or everyday storytelling practices into new media forms like digital storytelling.“Digital storytelling… works to remediate vernacular creativity…” (p. 209)
🎧 I-Voice (Chion)A cinematic/audiovisual term denoting a voiceover that is intimate and emotionally powerful, representing both the speaker and listener’s inner voice.“It is both completely internal and invading the entire universe…” (p. 210)
🎭 Demoticization (vs. Democratization)Turner’s critique that increased visibility of ordinary people in media doesn’t shift power, but integrates them into celebrity culture.“Represents not the ‘democratization’ but the ‘demoticization’ of the media” (p. 203)
🧠 Active AudienceA foundational cultural studies idea that audiences are not passive but interpret and even co-create meaning in media consumption.“The ‘active audience’ is now both a fact and a commercial imperative” (p. 202)
📚 Vernacular Theory (McLaughlin)Frameworks of knowledge and interpretation emerging from everyday people rather than institutional elites.“Challenging cultural studies to recognize… knowledges of non-elite cultures” (p. 206)
🧵 Empathy in Cultural StudiesA methodological and ethical commitment to listening to and valuing ordinary voices rather than speaking over or analyzing them reductively.“A commitment to empathy and respect for the ‘ordinary’ or ‘popular’ cultural formations” (p. 206)
🖼️ Aestheticized EverydayThe idea that even mundane, amateur forms (e.g., lomography) can be stylized and commodified, often losing their radical edge.“A fetishized and aestheticized version of everyday life” (p. 205)
🧮 Cultural Value ChainThe shift in meaning-making from producers to consumers; cultural value now flows through consumer interpretation and remix practices.“Cultural value… shifted from cultural elites… to cultural consumers” (p. 202)
✏️ Narrative AccessibilityA key principle of digital storytelling: stories are structured for emotional clarity and ease of understanding, emphasizing sincerity over complexity.“Narrative accessibility, warmth, and presence are prioritized” (p. 207)
🧱 Institutional MediationRecognition that digital storytelling often occurs within structured environments (like workshops), which shape and sometimes limit expression.“Distribution channels… frequently under the control of the institutions…” (p. 209)
Contribution of “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess to Literary Theory/Theories

🔍 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Reader-Response Theory
Contribution: Burgess amplifies the reader’s role as co-creator in the digital age, aligning with reader-response theory’s emphasis on interpretation and subjectivity.
🔹 She highlights how “cultural value… has shifted from cultural elites… to cultural consumers” (p. 202), reinforcing the idea that meaning is made in reception, not just in production.
🔹 In digital storytelling, the affective power of the voice (“I-voice”) invites identification, making the audience an emotional participant (p. 210).


💬 📖 Narrative Theory / Autobiographical Theory
Contribution: Digital storytelling introduces a new, vernacular form of life writing, expanding the boundaries of autobiographical narrative beyond literary or elite spaces.
🔹 “The personal narrative, told in the storyteller’s unique voice, is central… and is given priority” (p. 207).
🔹 Stories like Jenny’s reflect not only personal growth but also identity construction through narrative (p. 208).


🎙️ 📢 Poststructuralism & the Death of the Author (Barthes)
Contribution: Burgess complicates Barthes’s notion of the “death of the author” by returning to the affective presence of the speaker, especially through the intimate “I-voice.”
🔹 Rather than eliminating the author, digital storytelling repersonalizes authorship in non-elite forms: “the voice the spectator internalises as his or her own” (p. 210).


🏘️ 🌍 Cultural Materialism / New Historicism
Contribution: The article ties everyday creativity to social and economic contexts, grounding narrative in material realities (e.g., digital access, community workshops).
🔹 “Distribution channels… are frequently under the control of institutions” (p. 209), showing how material conditions shape literary/cultural output.
🔹 Minna’s and Jenny’s stories are rooted in socio-historical specificity—WWII and contemporary motherhood—underscoring how life context informs narrative production (pp. 208–210).


🧩 💡 Structuralism & Genre Theory
Contribution: Burgess identifies how digital stories remix genre conventions (photo albums, scrapbooking, oral storytelling), forming hybrid narrative structures.
🔹 She emphasizes “the recombination of familiar genre conventions and shared knowledges” (p. 206) as central to vernacular creativity.
🔹 The narrative economy of digital stories—250-word scripts, 12 images—acts as a structure of constraint and meaning (p. 207).


🧶 ❤️ Affect Theory
Contribution: One of the most important interventions is in showing how affective resonance—not intellectual analysis—is the key to understanding digital storytelling.
🔹 Stories are “sincere, warm, and human” (p. 208), and the “I-voice” creates an embodied experience of voice and presence.
🔹 “The digital story is a means of ‘becoming real’ to others… based on shared experience and affective resonances” (p. 210).


🗺️ 🧠 Feminist Literary Theory
Contribution: Through Jenny’s narrative and Burgess’s refusal to pathologize “ordinary” femininity, the article contributes to feminist concerns of agency, motherhood, and narrative voice.
🔹 “Becoming a mother has created opportunities rather than closing them off” (p. 208), challenging dominant scripts around reproduction and female identity.
🔹 Burgess resists reducing ordinary women’s stories to ideological critique, aligning with feminist aims of validating lived experiences.


🎮 🕹️ Media Theory & Multimodality
Contribution: Burgess bridges literary theory with media theory, showing how multimodal texts (voice, image, music) reshape narrative form.
🔹 “Remediation of vernacular creativity through digital tools transforms everyday experience into public culture” (p. 209).
🔹 This broadens the field of literary narrative to include hybrid, multimodal expressions.


📢 Summary of Impact
Jean Burgess’s article provides a critical bridge between traditional literary theory and emerging digital storytelling practices, emphasizing:
✔️ Empathy and emotion over formal complexity
✔️ Non-elite authorship as legitimate cultural production
✔️ Everyday narrative as both affective and political

She reconfigures how literary studies can engage with contemporary, multimedia, vernacular forms—not just as texts to analyze but as voices to hear.


Examples of Critiques Through “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess

🌟 Literary Work🧠 Critique Through Burgess’s Lens📌 Key Concept from Burgess
📖 “The Color Purple” by Alice WalkerThis epistolary novel, told in Celie’s own voice, aligns with Burgess’s emphasis on affective authenticity and everyday vernacular voice. It privileges the emotional and linguistic world of an ordinary, Black woman in the rural South—what Burgess calls a form of “vernacular creativity” (p. 206). The narrative challenges elitist aesthetics through its sincerity and intimacy.🗣️ Vernacular Creativity & I-Voice (pp. 206, 210)
🕯️ “Mrs. Dalloway” by Virginia WoolfBurgess’s idea of remediating everyday life (p. 209) can be used to re-read Woolf’s stream-of-consciousness style as an early literary attempt to give dignity to ordinary voices and interiorities. Clarissa’s walk through London becomes a digital story in prose, capturing affective resonances of the mundane, much like digital storytelling captures lived moments.💞 Everyday Life as Creative Field (p. 203)
💌 “Persepolis” by Marjane SatrapiAs a graphic memoir, Persepolis embodies Burgess’s concept of multimodal vernacular storytelling—blending visuals and personal narrative for public discourse. Like digital stories, it uses accessible aesthetics and personal voice to engage with cultural memory and political identity (p. 207). It challenges elitist literary forms through its emotive directness.🎨 Multimodality & Participatory Authorship (p. 209)
🎮 “Ready Player One” by Ernest ClineWhile the novel celebrates user-driven digital culture, Burgess’s critique warns us of conflating interactivity with equality. The novel privileges tech-savvy, nostalgic subcultural capital—limiting who is “heard” in this imagined participatory world (p. 203). It exemplifies how “ordinary creativity” can still replicate exclusivity and commercial logic.⚠️ Democratization vs. Demoticization (p. 203)

Summary Insight:

Burgess’s work helps us re-evaluate literature not only by what is said, but who gets to speak, how they are heard, and under what technological and cultural conditions. From Persepolis to Mrs. Dalloway, her ideas reposition emotional storytelling, non-elite narratives, and affective presence as central literary values, not peripheral ones.

Criticism Against “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess

Romanticization of the “Ordinary”
➡ Burgess risks idealizing vernacular expression, potentially overlooking how “ordinary voices” can also perpetuate dominant ideologies, prejudices, or stereotypes.

Even though she critiques celebratory populism, her framing often valorizes sincerity and emotion without always questioning content or ideology (p. 208).


🔹 🏗️ Institutional Mediation is Underplayed
➡ While she acknowledges the role of institutions (e.g., BBC, QUT), critics may argue that she underestimates how institutional contexts shape and limit “authentic” storytelling.

The curated nature of digital storytelling workshops may normalize certain narrative templates, leading to homogeneity (p. 209).


🔸 📊 Limited Structural Critique of Power
➡ Burgess focuses on representation and affect, but critics from Marxist or critical theory backgrounds might say she offers an insufficient critique of material inequality or systemic barriers.

Who gets access to technology, training, or platforms remains a major structural issue underexplored in her celebratory tone.


🔹 🧠 Under-theorization of Digital Literacy Gaps
➡ The assumption that digital storytelling is “empowering” may ignore deep differences in digital competence due to education, age, language, or socio-economic status.

Even with workshop support, not everyone can meaningfully participate—a fact that complicates the democratic framing (p. 208–209).


🔸 🎨 Emotional Appeal Over Analytical Depth
➡ By emphasizing “warmth, sincerity, and affect” (p. 208), Burgess may be overlooking narrative complexity or literary experimentation, potentially sidelining stories that don’t conform to her affective model.


🔹 🎢 Risk of Essentializing “Authentic” Expression
➡ What counts as “authentic” or “vernacular” is culturally coded and potentially exclusionary.

There’s a danger of privileging certain emotional styles (e.g., sentimental storytelling) as more legitimate, silencing others that are ironic, fragmented, or culturally divergent.


🔸 📹 Lack of Engagement with Algorithmic Mediation
➡ The piece does not consider how algorithms shape visibility, relevance, or virality of digital content—critical in today’s participatory culture where “being heard” is highly platform-dependent.


🔹 🔁 Repetition of Cultural Studies Debates
➡ Some may argue that Burgess revisits long-standing cultural studies debates (e.g., agency vs. structure, resistance vs. co-option) without significantly advancing them, even as she brings them into digital context.


🧩 Summary Takeaway:

While Jean Burgess’s article is visionary in championing everyday creativity and emotional storytelling, it can be critiqued for idealism, institutional blind spots, and limited engagement with power structures and digital inequalities.


Representative Quotations from “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess with Explanation

📝 Quotation (with Symbol)💬 Explanation
🎙️ “Digital storytelling… aims not only to remediate vernacular creativity but also to legitimate it as a worthwhile contribution to public culture.” (p. 207)Emphasizes the shift from private, everyday expression to public cultural recognition, a major theme of the article.
🧠 “Creativity is the process by which available cultural resources… are recombined in novel ways.” (p. 206)Redefines creativity in a non-elitist, participatory way, moving beyond traditional, high-art frameworks.
🗣️ “What we are looking at when we look at a digital story is something that sits uncomfortably with both our celebrations and ideological critiques of ‘popular culture’.” (p. 208)Shows how digital storytelling resists simplistic categorization, calling for nuanced critical approaches.
❤️ “Stories are in general marked by their sincerity, warmth, and humanity.” (p. 208)Reflects the affective tone of digital stories and their value outside irony or avant-garde formalism.
📢 “The question we ask about ‘democratic’ media participation can no longer be limited to ‘who gets to speak?’ We must also ask ‘who is heard, and to what end?'” (p. 203)Challenges superficial views of access and participation by emphasizing audibility and impact.
🛠️ “The personal narrative, told in the storyteller’s unique voice, is central… and is given priority.” (p. 207)Asserts the centrality of voice and personal experience as valid cultural contributions.
🔍 “Cultural studies… has been ‘shaped as a response to the social uptake of communications technologies.'” (p. 202)Positions cultural studies as inherently reactive and adaptive to technological change, especially in media.
🌐 “We now must understand cultural production to be part of everyday life in a much more literal sense.” (p. 202)Marks a paradigm shift where culture isn’t just consumed—it’s constantly produced by users in daily life.
💡 “Vernacular creativity… includes as part of the contemporary vernacular the experience of commercial popular culture.” (p. 206)Blurs the line between folk and mass culture, embracing hybrid creative forms.
🔊 “The digital story is a means of ‘becoming real’ to others, on the basis of shared experience and affective resonances.” (p. 210)Underscores the intimate and connective power of storytelling in public digital spaces.
Suggested Readings: “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling” by Jean Burgess
  1. Burgess, Jean. “Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling.” Continuum 20.2 (2006): 201-214.
  2. Di Blas, Nicoletta. “Authentic Learning, Creativity and Collaborative Digital Storytelling: Lessons from a Large-Scale Case-Study.” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 25, no. 2, 2022, pp. 80–104. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48660126. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
  3. Anderson, Kate T., and Puay Hoe Chua. “Digital Storytelling as an Interactive Digital Media Context.” Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 5, 2010, pp. 32–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429857. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
  4. Michael Wilson. “‘Another Fine Mess’: The Condition of Storytelling in the Digital Age.” Narrative Culture, vol. 1, no. 2, 2014, pp. 125–44. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.13110/narrcult.1.2.0125. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.

“Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise: Summary and Critique

“Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley and J. Macgregor Wise first appeared in Cultural Studies in 2018 and was published online on September 16th of that year.

"Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies" by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise

“Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley and J. Macgregor Wise first appeared in Cultural Studies in 2018 and was published online on September 16th of that year. The article is a comprehensive genealogical inquiry into the uptake, influence, and evolving role of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concepts within the journal Cultural Studies over the past three decades. Rather than simply charting citations, the authors engage in a metatheoretical reflection, treating the journal itself as an actor-network and a discursive node that articulates various historical, institutional, and intellectual trajectories. Central to their inquiry is the notion of theory as a “toolbox,” drawing on Foucault and Deleuze, wherein theoretical concepts are mobilized not for abstraction but for intervention in specific conjunctures. Key Deleuzo-Guattarian concepts such as nomadology, deterritorialization, assemblage, affect, and control are traced across thematic plateaus—from the romanticized “nomad” figure of the 1980s to the ascendant discourse of “assemblage” in the 2010s. Wiley and Wise argue that while concepts like affect and territorialization have shaped much of the field’s analytic grammar, others such as diagram, Body without Organs, and mixed semiotics remain underexplored but ripe for future engagement. Importantly, the authors advocate not merely for borrowing Deleuze and Guattari’s ideas, but for following their method: inventing new concepts adequate to contemporary conditions. Their work contributes significantly to literary theory and cultural studies by demonstrating how Deleuzo-Guattarian thought can be generative for understanding the production of subjectivity, agency, and political transformation within shifting socio-cultural assemblages.

Summary of “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise

🎒 Theory as Toolbox: Cultural Studies and Deleuze–Guattari

🔧 Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts are not rigid ideologies but flexible tools, echoing Foucault’s notion of theory as a “toolbox” (Foucault, 1977; Wiley & Wise, 2018, p. 2).
🎯 Cultural Studies should return from theory to context — theory is a detour, not a destination (Hall, 1992).


🌏 The Journal as Actor-Network

🧵 Using Latour’s actor-network theory, the journal Cultural Studies is seen as a node connecting scholars, institutions, translations, and concepts (Latour, 2005, p. 68).
📚 Why Deleuze and Guattari were read often depends on institutional networks, educational access, and editorial translations (Morris & Muecke, 1991, p. 77).


🕰️ Chronology of Conceptual Trends

📍 1980s – Nomadism

🏕️ “Nomad” emerged as a postmodern subject and metaphor for deterritorialized knowledge (Morris, 1988; Grossberg, 1988).
⚠️ Critics warned against romanticizing marginality (Muecke, 1992; Wolff, 1993).

🗺️ 1990s – Territory and Deterritorialization

🌐 Reflecting the spatial turn, cultural theory engaged territories and flows (Grossberg, 1991).
🎵 Music became a metaphor for affective spatial structuring.

🧠 2000s – Control and Affect

🎛️ The “control society” gained traction via Postscript on Control Societies (Deleuze, 1992) and Hardt & Negri’s Empire (2000).
💓 Affect became a lens to study bodies, pedagogy, shame, and everyday life (Massumi, 1995; Probyn, 2004).

🧩 2010s – Assemblage

🧬 Assemblage (agencement) emerged in response to the “material turn” and offered a model for theorizing non-human agency and complexity (Slack, 2008; Grossberg, 2014).
🧱 It emphasized dynamic construction of relations, rather than fixed structures.


📚 Most-Cited Works and Concepts

📘 A Thousand Plateaus tops the citation list, followed by Anti-Oedipus, and What is Philosophy? (Wiley & Wise, 2018, p. 7).
🔑 Frequently used concepts:

  • ❤️ Affect
  • 🌍 Territory
  • 🔁 Deterritorialization/Reterritorialization
  • 🧩 Assemblage
  • 🌀 Becoming
  • 👁️‍🗨️ Control

🧠 Reimagining Cultural Studies through Deleuze & Guattari

🛠️ Eight landmark essays redefined cultural studies using Deleuze and Guattari’s frameworks (Seigworth & Wise, 2000; Grossberg, 2014).
⚡ Theory must be used creatively, not religiously. Concepts are to be invented, not just applied (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 27).


🛠️ Doing Cultural Studies with D&G’s Concepts

🔍 Articles applied Deleuzoguattarian tools to diverse topics:

  • 📹 Surveillance (Wise, 2004)
  • 🎵 Music and politics (Grossberg, 1991)
  • 🧑‍🏫 Pedagogy (Albrecht-Crane, 2005)
  • 🎤 Affect and identity (Keeling, 2014; Probyn, 2004)

🧳 Underused Concepts & Future Potentials

🕳️ Despite their richness, some Deleuzoguattarian ideas are underexplored:

  • 🌀 Body without Organs
  • 🧬 Sense and Sensation
  • 📐 Diagram and Fold
  • 🧠 Schizoanalysis and Desire

🌿 Guattari’s solo works — The Three Ecologies, Chaosmosis — are beginning to reshape new directions in cultural studies (Grossberg & Behrenshausen, 2016).


🌱 Concept Creation as Cultural Practice

🌟 Cultural studies must invent new concepts that meet the needs of the moment — echoing D&G’s call to “create concepts for problems that necessarily change” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 28).
🔭 Instead of following theoretical trends, the field should create new possibilities for thinking and acting.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise
🌈 Symbol🧠 Concept📜 Brief Explanation / Use in the Article
🧩AssemblageRefers to heterogeneous elements (material, discursive, affective) coming together to form dynamic relations. Dominant in the 2010s (p. 10).
🌀BecomingTransformation over time; emphasizes process over stability. A key Deleuzoguattarian idea (p. 6, 14).
🧱Territorialization / DeterritorializationProcesses that stabilize or destabilize meaning, identity, and space. Central in the 1990s (p. 7).
💓AffectIntensity, emotion, and embodied response. Gained traction in the 2000s and 2010s; connects to politics and everyday life (p. 8).
🎛️ControlConcept from Deleuze’s “Postscript on the Societies of Control”; addresses surveillance and neoliberal governance (p. 8).
🏕️NomadologyThe study of nomadic thought and movement. Prominent in the 1980s as a metaphor for flexible subjectivity (p. 7).
🌿HaecceityThe individuality of a moment or assemblage. Used to understand cultural formations beyond identity (Slack, 2008; p. 11).
🕸️Actor-Network TheoryLatour’s idea of mapping relationships across material/social networks. Used to understand how D&G ideas traveled into cultural studies (p. 3).
🖇️Toolbox MetaphorFrom Foucault/Deleuze: theory as a set of tools used contextually, not dogmatically (p. 2).
💡Concept CreationCore practice of D&G philosophy; emphasized as essential to cultural studies’ future (p. 16).
🎨SensationFrom Deleuze’s work on art (Francis Bacon); underutilized but vital for aesthetic and affective engagement (p. 15).
🔁Assemblage/AgencementOften mistranslated; emphasized as dynamic, political arrangements with trajectory (p. 10).
🎭EnunciationFrom Guattari’s mixed semiotics; focuses on how meaning and expression emerge through interaction (p. 12).
🔮The MinorFrom Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature; denotes marginal, subversive modes of expression (p. 14).
📐DiagramRefers to abstract machine mappings; used in Guattari’s and Deleuze’s theory of power and creativity (mentioned as underused, p. 15).
🧬Body without Organs (BwO)A space of potential beyond organization and structure; a rarely cited but key Deleuzian figure (p. 15).
⚙️Machine/MachinicNot just technical but social/desiring assemblages; frequently misread as mechanical (p. 15, 18).
🌊FlowsDesires, capital, ideas moving across systems; tied to Anti-Oedipus and theories of capitalism (p. 15).
🔗Agencement (Original French)Implies arrangement and agency formation; more active than its English counterpart “assemblage” (p. 10).
🎤SubjectivationProcess of becoming a subject; central to Guattari’s theories of politics and media (p. 16).
Contribution of “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise to Literary Theory/Theories

🔁 Poststructuralism & Deconstruction

  • 🧷 Destabilization of Meaning
    Challenges representational and structuralist readings by emphasizing fluidity, assemblages, and deterritorialization.

“The concept of the minor… making this seem like a productive, yet underutilized, concept” (p. 14).
Also emphasized in Difference and Repetition, Logic of Sense, and the anti-representational critique of affect (p. 15–16).

  • 🕳️ The Rhizome as Anti-Structure
    Rhizomatic thinking subverts hierarchical structures in texts, suggesting a non-linear, multiplicities-based model of interpretation.

“Concepts… are not eternal… they bring forth an Event that surveys us…” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, pp. 27–28).


🔮 Affect Theory

  • 💓 Centering Affect over Representation
    Proposes a non-discursive, bodily dimension of meaning, expanding literary critique beyond semiotics.

“Affect should not be understood as a separate, fetishized force… but in its contextual formations” (Grossberg & Behrenshausen, 2016, p. 6).
See also: Boler (1997), Probyn (2004), Seigworth (2000).


🧩 Postmodernism

  • 🏞️ Nomadology and the Fragmented Subject
    Applies the Deleuzoguattarian nomad to postmodern identity and critique of grand narratives.

“The 1980s: all we hear about are nomads” (p. 7).
Essays by Grossberg, Morris, Radway, Wolff engage this postmodern figure.

  • 🎭 Multiplicity over Identity
    Undermines fixed subject positions in literary characters and readers; favors processual becoming.

“What is the philosophical form of the problems of a particular time?” (p. 2, Deleuze & Guattari, 1994).


🧱 Spatial Literary Theory / Geocriticism

  • 🧭 Territorialization and Reterritorialization
    Literature seen as mapping spatial production of meaning; connects with Doreen Massey, Henri Lefebvre.

“Culture as an active agent in the production of places and spaces” (Grossberg, 1992, p. 27).
“Rock, Territorialization and Power” (Grossberg, 1991, p. 364).

  • 🧳 The Minor and the Margin
    Texts/literatures from marginal cultures conceptualized through Kafka’s minor literature.

“Minor” literature used in works on Yiddish, postcolonialism, and Hong Kong cinema (p. 14).


🗺️ Cultural Materialism

  • 🔧 Theory as Toolbox
    Echoes Foucault and Deleuze’s claim that theory should be applied, not revered.

“Theory as a toolbox… What concepts are useful for this particular conjuncture?” (p. 2).

  • ⚙️ Assemblage as Literary Formation
    Texts seen as events or agencements, not static forms, shaped by material and semiotic processes.

“Culture itself should be understood as a production of assembled agency” (Wiley, 2005, p. 11).


🧬 New Materialism / Posthumanism

  • 🌐 Post-Anthropocentric Literary Analysis
    Encourages critiques of texts that move beyond human-centeredness, embracing material agency.

“Bodies do not exist outside discourse, but cannot be reduced to it” (Slack, 2008, p. 11).
Guattari’s Three Ecologies and Schizoanalytic Cartographies mentioned (p. 5, 16).

  • 🛠️ Semiotics Beyond Language
    Guattari’s “mixed semiotics” implies that signification operates across bodily, affective, and machinic registers.

“Shift the ground of argument from affect to the broader question of expression and signs” (Grossberg & Behrenshausen, 2016, p. 19).


📦 Literary Pedagogy

  • 🧑‍🏫 Affective Pedagogy and Minor Modes of Teaching
    Redefines the classroom as a site of affective assemblages, challenging linear learning.

“Pedagogy as friendship… a model of encounter as affective and multiple” (Albrecht-Crane, 2005, p. 9).


Examples of Critiques Through “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise
📖 Literary Work🧠 Deleuzo-Guattarian Lens🔍 Critique Focus📌 Related Concepts from Article
“Ulysses” – James JoyceRhizome & Minor LiteratureRhizomatic structure of narrative and the deterritorialized use of language reflect the “minor” mode (Kafkaesque deterritorialization).“Nomad” and “Minor” concepts applied to literature that deterritorializes language and identity (p. 14).
“Beloved” – Toni MorrisonAffect & AssemblageTrauma and memory as affective assemblages of personal and historical violence, disrupting linear time and identity.“Affect… not as separate force but in contextual formations” (p. 6); affect as a political and literary force (p. 8).
“The God of Small Things” – Arundhati RoyBecoming & TerritorializationThe children’s perspectives and broken narrative syntax resist adult authority and cultural fixity—emphasizing becoming-child.“Deterritorialization” and “Becoming” in cultural critique; critiques of dominant power structures (p. 7–9).
“Frankenstein” – Mary ShelleyMachinic Assemblage & SubjectivationThe creature as a machinic subject, produced through flows of power, science, and social exclusion. Text explores shifting subjectivities.Guattari’s “mixed semiotics,” subjectivation, and machinic assemblages (p. 15–16); critique of overcoding and identity politics.

🧭 Key Theoretical Anchors from the Article
  • 🔺 Rhizome: Non-linear, interconnected textual structures (Joyce).
  • 💢 Affect: Non-discursive intensity tied to trauma or embodiment (Morrison).
  • 🌍 Deterritorialization: Unsettling of fixed identities, borders, or language (Roy).
  • ⚙️ Assemblage: Textual formation of human and non-human agents (Shelley).

Criticism Against “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise

🔍 Overemphasis on Citational Presence

While the authors admit the limitations, the method still privileges explicit citation over implicit influence, potentially ignoring nuanced or indirect incorporations of Deleuzian-Guattarian thought.
📌 “Explicit citations in a published journal article are only one kind of trace” (p. 6)


📉 Neglect of Guattari’s Solo Work

The article critiques this itself, but doesn’t deeply address the imbalanced focus on Deleuze or co-authored works over Guattari’s independent theoretical contributions, such as The Three Ecologies or Schizoanalytic Cartographies.
📌 “Guattari’s solo-authored work is cited infrequently” (p. 7)


🌀 Conceptual Redundancy in Cultural Studies

Some may argue the frequent use of concepts like assemblage, affect, and territory risks becoming buzzwords rather than truly transformative tools in cultural analysis.
📌 “What this work can do is shift some of the questions we ask” (p. 17) – but do they?


📚 Lack of Engagement with Literary/Cultural Texts

The paper is more meta-theoretical than applied—it maps usage patterns but doesn’t offer in-depth readings of actual cultural or literary texts using Deleuze & Guattari.
📌 The article is focused on Cultural Studies journal discourse, not on practical applications in literary or media criticism.


🗂️ Archival vs. Analytical Imbalance

The study is strong on archival mapping but weaker on philosophical critique. There’s little interrogation of how Deleuze-Guattari’s ontology challenges or complicates key cultural studies assumptions (e.g., agency, representation).
📌 The philosophical depth is somewhat backgrounded in favor of taxonomy.


📈 Limited Global or Intersectional Scope

While it notes the global spread of Deleuzian ideas, the primary focus remains Anglophone, particularly the U.S. and Australian scenes, with less attention to non-Western or intersectional adaptations.
📌 Brief nods to global circulation (e.g., Japan, Brazil) are not explored substantively (p. 17).


🧩 Ambiguous Relation to Politics

Despite emphasizing “intervention” and “assemblage,” the paper offers limited concrete examples of political transformation through D&G’s theories in Cultural Studies praxis.
📌 It critiques theory fetishism but doesn’t show how to fully move from theory to transformative action.

Representative Quotations from “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise with Explanation


🔧 1. “Theory is a toolbox”
🟠 Explanation: Echoing Foucault and Deleuze, theory is not an end in itself but a set of practical tools used to intervene in specific conjunctures.
➤ Highlights cultural studies’ emphasis on utility over abstraction.


🌱 2. “Follow the concepts!”
🟢 Explanation: A call to trace how Deleuzian and Guattarian concepts evolve across time and texts, adapting to new historical and social problematics.
➤ Encourages genealogical and contextual analysis of theory.


🌐 3. “Cultural studies is not driven by theory (or at least it shouldn’t be).”
🔵 Explanation: A reminder that theory should serve practice, not dominate it — a Hall-inspired critique of over-theorization.
➤ Reinforces practice-based, politically grounded scholarship.


🧰 4. “What concepts are useful for this particular conjuncture?”
🟡 Explanation: Emphasizes situational relevance in selecting theoretical tools, mirroring Guattari’s schizoanalytic approach.
➤ Encourages responsiveness to context and specificity.


🧭 5. “We see this chronology of concepts, citations, and deployments as notes for a future genealogy.”
🟣 Explanation: The authors propose a historical mapping of intellectual influence, not as closure but as an invitation to continue tracing conceptual trajectories.
➤ Promotes open-ended scholarly inquiry.


📡 6. “The journal itself as a node… a relay… a point of articulation.”
🔴 Explanation: A Latour-inspired view of the journal as a network hub connecting diverse actors and intellectual exchanges.
➤ Situates academic publishing within dynamic actor-networks.


🌀 7. “Cultural studies itself should be understood as a production of ‘assembled agency.’”
🔵 Explanation: Applies the Deleuzo-Guattarian concept of assemblage to the academic practice of cultural studies.
➤ Positions scholarship as collaborative, emergent, and political.


🔥 8. “The 1980s: all we hear about are nomads… The 2000s: all we hear about is affect and control.”
🟤 Explanation: Identifies shifting thematic focuses across decades using Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts as cultural barometers.
➤ Reflects how key concepts reflect broader sociopolitical concerns.


💬 9. “Philosophy often becomes a grazing ground for those seeking theoretical tools.”
🟢 Explanation: A caution against superficial or selective use of theory without deep engagement.
➤ Calls for ethical and intellectual responsibility in scholarship.


🪐 10. “What this work can do is shift some of the questions we ask…”
🌈 Explanation: A humble proposition — not to provide answers, but to redirect thought and inquiry.
➤ Reframes the task of theory as generative, not conclusive.


Suggested Readings: “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise
  1. Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J. “PLANTS: DELEUZE’S AND GUATTARI’S RHIZOMES.” Counterpoints, vol. 505, 2017, pp. 63–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45177696. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
  2. Grisham, Therese. “Linguistics as an Indiscipline: Deleuze and Guattari’s Pragmatics.” SubStance, vol. 20, no. 3, 1991, pp. 36–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3685178. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
  3. “Bibliography: Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari.” SubStance, vol. 13, no. 3/4, 1984, pp. 96–105. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3684777. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.

“Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad: Summary and Critique

“Emergence: Stuart Hall and Cultural Studies Across the World” by M. Madhava Prasad first appeared in Inter-Asia Cultural Studies in 2014, published by Routledge.

"Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World" by M. Madhava Parsad: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad

“Emergence: Stuart Hall and Cultural Studies Across the World” by M. Madhava Prasad first appeared in Inter-Asia Cultural Studies in 2014, published by Routledge. In this reflective and semi-autobiographical essay, Prasad underscores the global impact of Stuart Hall’s intellectual legacy and the formation of Cultural Studies as a field uniquely suited to addressing questions of identity, politics, and the transformation of social consciousness. Rooted in the personal narrative of his academic initiation at the University of Pittsburgh during the early 1990s—a time when British academics, including Colin MacCabe, sought refuge in American universities—Prasad weaves his journey of encountering Hall’s work with broader geopolitical and cultural transformations. Central to the article is the idea of emergence: the rise of new political subjectivities and the reconstitution of public discourse through them, a recurring theme in Hall’s work. Prasad critically examines the unique evolution of Cultural Studies in the Indian context, emphasizing how the postcolonial subject, once objectified by colonial knowledge systems, now challenges and reorients those very epistemologies. Drawing from Hall’s insights—particularly concepts like “conjuncture,” “hegemony,” and “common sense”—Prasad situates Cultural Studies as a critical response to both Western objectivism and indigenous elitism. This essay is significant in literary theory and cultural critique for illustrating how theory becomes transformative when tethered to lived histories and collective emergence, especially in contexts where identity and knowledge production are under contestation.

Summary of “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad

🔸 Cultural Studies as an Interdisciplinary Formation

  • Cultural Studies is not defined by conventional disciplinary boundaries but rather functions as “an interdisciplinary space for asking new questions” across the humanities and social sciences (Prasad, 2014, p. 191).
  • At the University of Pittsburgh, Cultural Studies operated as a “meeting ground” across departments, reflecting its inherently hybrid and collaborative nature.

🔸 Learning from Stuart Hall: Hegemony, Conjuncture, and Social Reading

  • Prasad credits Stuart Hall for his understanding of “hegemony” and “conjuncture”, concepts that challenge traditional notions of class struggle and encourage reading social realities as texts (Prasad, 2014, p. 191).
  • Hall’s critique of the Left’s failure in “shaping the culture and educating desire” deeply resonated with India’s own political struggles during its neoliberal shift.

🔸 English Literature and Its Cultural Prestige in Postcolonial India

  • In 1970s India, English Literature promised upward mobility and symbolic capital but masked its political function as a colonial holdover.
  • Despite the presence of radical professors, there was “little or no consciousness of the political significance of the persistence of English as the ‘queen of the humanities'” (Prasad, 2014, p. 192).

🔸 Cultural Studies and Social Shifts in Indian Academia

  • As students from marginalized backgrounds entered universities, the symbolic and cultural authority of English was “radically redefined” (Prasad, 2014, p. 192).
  • Cultural Studies offered these students a more inclusive and responsive intellectual space, aligning with Hall’s commitment to emergent political identities.

🔸 British vs. Indian Cultural Studies: Sociology vs. Anthropology

  • British Cultural Studies arose in response to sociology’s objectification of the working class (e.g., Hoggart’s “scholarship boy”), while in India, anthropology played this role.
  • The story of an Indian student discovering his “own widowed mother” in an anthropological journal epitomizes the postcolonial shock of seeing one’s life objectified by Western academia (Prasad, 2014, p. 192).

🔸 Knowledge, Modernity, and the Postcolonial Subject

  • Prasad argues that the “Indian subject is a stain in the field of knowledge”—an unsettling presence in structures that were meant to objectify the colonized (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
  • Postcolonial intellectuals must disrupt the inherited knowledge apparatus rather than “acquiesce in one’s own subjective effacement.”

🔸 The Subaltern Elite and Suppression of Indigenous Voices

  • The Indian ruling class, described as the “subaltern elite” (via Partha Chatterjee), seeks Western approval while suppressing grassroots voices (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
  • Cultural Studies in India positions itself “on the side of the indigenous challengers” rather than the postcolonial elite allied with English literary traditions.

🔸 Hall’s Legacy: Subjective Experience Without Theoretical Abandonment

  • Stuart Hall’s method blends autobiography with rigorous theory. His essays, such as “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies” and “New Ethnicities”, insist that subjectivity should “not be mistaken for an indifference to theory” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
  • Hall provides a model for how marginalized identities can write themselves into public discourse without reducing intellectual inquiry to confession.

🔸 Emergence as Political and Epistemological Transformation

  • The central concept of emergence refers to the appearance of new political subjectivities and their impact on knowledge and society.
  • Prasad echoes Hall’s insight that “for the process of emergence to be successful, it must be simultaneously a transformation of the world into which we emerge” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad

Term with SymbolExplanation (as used in the article)
📚 Cultural StudiesNot a fixed discipline but “an interdisciplinary space for asking new questions”, bridging humanities and social sciences to examine culture as a site of power and resistance.
🔄 ConjunctureA term from Hall, signifying the historical moment where different political, economic, and cultural forces converge, demanding new ways of understanding social change.
👑 HegemonyBorrowed from Gramsci and central to Hall’s thought; refers to the ways dominant ideologies become normalized as “common sense” through cultural, not just economic means.
🧠 Common SenseAnother Gramscian term used by Hall to describe the internalization of dominant values; Thatcherism’s success lay in reshaping the nation’s “common sense”.
📖 “Reading” (with quotation marks)Signifies interpreting cultural and social phenomena like texts. As Prasad notes, Hall taught how to “read something that is not a text, but a piece of social reality.”
🧭 Subject-in-EmergenceDescribes new political subjects entering public life and knowledge systems—“a subject-in-emergence will necessarily disturb… the apparatuses” of older epistemologies.
👥 Subaltern EliteFrom Partha Chatterjee, used to critique postcolonial Indian elites who seek Western validation while silencing domestic, marginalized voices in public discourse.
💬 Autobiographical MethodHall’s distinctive way of blending personal narrative with theory—“individual autobiography is also the narrative of a collective identity”—as a tool of critical reflection.
🧩 EmergenceThe article’s central theme: “the advent of new subjectivities” and the idea that their appearance must also lead to structural transformation, not just visibility.
Contribution of “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad to Literary Theory/Theories

🟣 1. Contribution to Postcolonial Theory

  • 🪷 Re-centering the Postcolonial Subject: Prasad underscores how formerly colonized subjects struggle to move from being objects of knowledge to subjects of intellectual production. He writes that “the Indian subject is a stain in the field of knowledge. A subject-in-emergence will necessarily disturb and seek to reconstitute the objective apparatuses” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
  • 🧵 Threading Subjectivity into Postcolonial Critique: Prasad uses the metaphor of emergence to map how the postcolonial subject both inhabits and destabilizes colonial epistemologies—an insight that aligns with and expands the concerns of postcolonial theorists like Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha.

🔵 2. Contribution to Cultural Materialism & Marxist Literary Theory

  • 🛠️ Focus on Cultural Hegemony over Economic Determinism: Influenced by Hall’s reading of Gramsci, Prasad shows how Thatcherism succeeded not economically, but by reshaping “common sense”, i.e., cultural hegemony (Prasad, 2014, p. 191). This shifts focus in literary theory from base/superstructure models to cultural power and meaning.
  • 📦 Literature as Part of Ideological Apparatuses: English literature’s role in Indian academia is examined not just as pedagogy but as ideology. Prasad notes the absence of reflection on “the political significance of the persistence of English as the ‘queen of the humanities’ in independent India” (p. 192).

🟡 3. Contribution to Reader-Response and Reception Theory

  • 🔍 Social Texts as Objects of Interpretation: Prasad extends the act of “reading” beyond traditional literary texts, echoing Stuart Hall’s insight that we can “read something that is not a text, but a piece of social reality” (p. 191). This broadens interpretive practice to include culture itself as a text, a hallmark of reception theory.
  • 📖 Interpreting Emergence as Reading: The idea of emergence as a collective narrative that demands interpretation aligns with reader-oriented approaches to meaning-making in literature and society.

🟢 4. Contribution to Identity Politics & Ethnic Literary Studies

  • 🧑🏽‍🤝‍🧑🏾 Foregrounding Marginal Subjectivities: Through Hall, Prasad elevates the significance of personal and collective identity in theory, stating that Hall’s autobiography is also “the narrative of a collective identity” (p. 193). This deeply informs ethnic literary criticism and theorizing about voice and representation.
  • 🌱 Emergence of New Political Identities: Prasad connects Hall’s ideas of Black British politics with Indian contexts—“it is the emergence of new subjects onto the political stage that is at issue” (p. 193). Such emergence is central to theorizing subaltern and caste-based literature in India.

🔴 5. Contribution to Interdisciplinary Theory

  • 🔗 Blurring Disciplinary Boundaries: Prasad reinforces that Cultural Studies is inherently interdisciplinary, with “courses co-taught by faculty from different departments” and insights emerging from diverse fields (p. 191). This encourages literary theory to embrace sociology, anthropology, and political theory.
  • 🧪 Literary Studies as Cultural Critique: English literature is no longer isolated but embedded in broader cultural, institutional, and political critiques, helping reposition the role of literature within academic inquiry.

🟤 6. Contribution to Autobiographical and Narrative Theory

  • 📘 Life-Writing as Political Theory: Drawing from Hall’s “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies”, Prasad shows how autobiography becomes a mode of theorization—“individual autobiography is also the narrative of a collective identity” (p. 193).
  • 💡 Personal History as Epistemological Entry Point: This approach affirms narrative theory’s argument that personal stories are central to identity formation, cultural memory, and resistance literature.

🟠 7. Contribution to Decolonial Literary Studies

  • 🛑 Critique of Imported Theories: Prasad critiques Indian social science for becoming “knowledge as obedience”, simply applying “readymade theories” from the West without questioning their origin or context (p. 193).
  • 🧠 Call for Indigenous Theoretical Frameworks: This aligns with decolonial theory’s insistence on knowledge production from within local histories and subjectivities.
Examples of Critiques Through “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad
🌍 SymbolLiterary Work
🟣 1. Untouchable by Mulk Raj Anand (1935)🔍 This novel can be read through the lens of emergence, where Bakha, the Dalit protagonist, represents a “subject-in-emergence” who disturbs the colonial and caste-based epistemological order. Like Prasad’s emphasis on new political subjectivities, Bakha’s awareness challenges dominant “common sense” about caste (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
🔵 2. Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys (1966)🧠 Rhys’s novel rewrites Jane Eyre from the perspective of a Caribbean Creole woman. Through Prasad’s critique of postcolonial knowledge and objectification, Antoinette can be seen as the colonized subject who, like the widowed mother in anthropology journals, is objectified and silenced. The novel enacts the struggle to reconstitute the subject’s voice within dominant Western discourse (Prasad, p. 192).
🟢 3. The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy (1997)💬 This novel critiques social hierarchies and the persistence of English as cultural capital in postcolonial India. Drawing from Prasad’s observation that English literature remained the “queen of the humanities” (p. 192), Roy’s depiction of caste, family, and language reveals the contested space of cultural knowledge and elitism, aligning with Cultural Studies’ project of deconstructing ideological normalcy.
🔴 4. Native Son by Richard Wright (1940)✊🏾 Wright’s portrayal of Bigger Thomas aligns with Stuart Hall’s theory of Black subjectivity and Prasad’s idea of the “autobiographical narrative as collective identity” (p. 193). The novel embodies the emergence of a racialized subject whose marginalization is shaped by hegemonic structures, and whose violence is both a symptom and critique of social containment.

🌟 How This Table Connects to Prasad’s Essay:
  • Each work illustrates the emergence of marginalized voices into hegemonic discourse, a core concern of the article.
  • The texts reflect what Prasad calls the “disturbance and reconstitution of objective apparatuses” of knowledge (p. 193).
  • They show how Cultural Studies as a method enables critiques of both literary form and institutional knowledge, in both the colonial and postcolonial contexts.
Criticism Against “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad

Potential Criticisms of the Essay


🔸 ⚖️ Over-Reliance on Autobiography

  • While Prasad draws on personal experience to theorize Cultural Studies, critics may argue that the essay leans too heavily on individual narrative without sufficient empirical or comparative analysis of global contexts beyond India and the UK.

🔸 🌍 Limited Global Scope Despite Global Title

  • Although titled “Cultural Studies Across the World,” the article primarily focuses on Britain and India, leaving out engagement with Cultural Studies movements in Latin America, East Asia (beyond brief reference), or Africa, thereby narrowing its supposed international scope.

🔸 📘 Absence of Deep Engagement with Literary Texts

  • Despite its implications for literary theory, the essay does not closely analyze any literary texts. This could be seen as a missed opportunity to demonstrate how Cultural Studies can transform literary interpretation in practice.

🔸 📉 Lack of Critical Engagement with Stuart Hall

  • While the essay pays tribute to Hall’s influence, it does not critically interrogate his theories or their limitations. The tone leans toward homage rather than critical dialogue, which might limit its analytical depth.

🔸 🏛️ Institutional Critique Without Systematic Evidence

  • The critique of English departments and Indian social sciences as ideologically compromised is compelling but under-supported. Statements like “knowledge as obedience” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193) would benefit from case studies or institutional data to back the argument.

🔸 🔗 Complex Language, Dense Expression

  • The essay’s dense and theoretical language may alienate readers unfamiliar with Hall, Gramsci, or the specific Indian academic context. This makes the text less accessible, especially for undergraduate or interdisciplinary audiences.

🔸 🧩 Fragmented Structure

  • The essay moves quickly between personal anecdote, institutional critique, postcolonial theory, and global reflections, which some may find lacks structural cohesion. It reads more like a reflective essay than a rigorous academic article.

Representative Quotations from “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad with Explanation
🔹 Quotation💬 Explanation
1. “Cultural Studies is not a discipline in the conventional sense so much as an interdisciplinary space for asking new questions.”Highlights how Cultural Studies transcends academic silos, functioning as a dynamic field that interrogates culture, politics, and identity across disciplines.
2. “The Left had failed in ‘shaping the culture and educating desire’: tasks that the Indian Left has never been known to take seriously.”Refers to Stuart Hall’s critique of the Left’s neglect of cultural work, emphasizing how ideological battles must also be fought at the level of desire and everyday life.
3. “I learnt about the ‘conjuncture,’ learnt what it meant to ‘read’ something that is not a text, but a piece of social reality.”Introduces key concepts—’conjuncture’ and ‘reading’—that shift analysis from literary texts to social structures as culturally meaningful texts.
4. “Hall, departing from the economism of the established Left, points to the cultural roots of Thatcherism.”Marks Hall’s major theoretical intervention—his move away from class-only analysis to a more nuanced reading of how culture reinforces political dominance.
5. “There was… little or no consciousness of the political significance of the persistence of English as the ‘queen of the humanities.'”Critiques the uncritical prestige of English literature in postcolonial India and its role in maintaining cultural hegemony.
6. “The shock of encountering one’s own life thus converted into objective disciplinary knowledge is perhaps a necessary stage in postcolonial self-knowledge.”Reflects the traumatic realization that postcolonial subjects are often studied rather than heard, captured in disciplines like anthropology.
7. “The Indian subject is a stain in the field of knowledge. A subject-in-emergence will necessarily disturb and seek to reconstitute the objective apparatuses.”Emphasizes how the marginalized subject’s entry into knowledge disrupts colonial and elite academic structures.
8. “Much of social science in India is nothing but knowledge as obedience, an unquestioning application of readymade theories.”Critiques intellectual dependency in Indian academia and the blind reproduction of Western theoretical frameworks.
9. “Individual autobiography is also the narrative of a collective identity.”Shows how Hall’s personal experiences reflect larger cultural and political shifts, positioning biography as a theoretical tool.
10. “For the process of emergence to be successful, it must be simultaneously a transformation of the world into which we emerge.”Captures the article’s key thesis: true emergence involves not just entering dominant discourse but transforming it from within.

Suggested Readings: “Emergence: Stuart Hall And Cultural Studies Across The World” by M. Madhava Parsad
  1. Hall, Stuart. “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities.” October, vol. 53, 1990, pp. 11–23. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/778912. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
  2. Phillips, Caryl, and Stuart Hall. “Stuart Hall.” BOMB, no. 58, 1997, pp. 38–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40426392. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
  3. Kenneth Surin. “‘MARXISM, WITHOUT GUARANTEES’: WHAT I LEARNED FROM STUART HALL.” Cultural Critique, vol. 89, 2015, pp. 136–49. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/culturalcritique.89.2015.0136. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.
  4. Beverley, John. “Cultural Studies.” Latin American Literary Review, vol. 20, no. 40, 1992, pp. 19–22. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20119618. Accessed 6 Apr. 2025.

“Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens: Summary and Critique

“Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens first appeared in Comparative Literature, Volume 67, Issue 1, in 2015.

"Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture" by Matthew Wilkens: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens

“Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens first appeared in Comparative Literature, Volume 67, Issue 1, in 2015. In this article, Wilkens makes a compelling case for the integration of computational methods into the traditionally qualitative realms of literary and cultural studies. He argues that while digital humanities is not overtaking the humanities, it offers powerful tools—such as text mining, network analysis, and geographic mapping—for uncovering patterns, trends, and structures in literature that would otherwise remain inaccessible. These methods, Wilkens contends, allow scholars to work at scales ranging from close reading to macro-level analysis, providing a bridge between literary interpretation and quantitative modeling. For instance, he highlights Andrew Piper and Mark Algee-Hewitt’s “topological reading” of Goethe’s Werther, which reconfigures Goethe’s entire corpus using word-frequency analysis to challenge established periodizations. He also discusses Richard Jean So and Hoyt Long’s sociological network studies of modernist poetry, which reveal transnational literary dynamics and the roles of marginalized “broker” figures in shaping literary fields. Wilkens’ article is especially significant for literary theory as it calls for a more explicit and epistemologically grounded engagement with quantitative reasoning already latent in traditional analysis. He insists that computational methods do not replace but rather extend critical inquiry by offering new types of evidence and ways of reading that foster defamiliarization, inclusivity, and structural insight. The article serves both as a defense and roadmap for the future of comparative literature within the digital turn, underscoring the mutual necessity of collaboration between humanists and computational thinkers.

Summary of “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens

📘 Main Concepts & Key Takeaways

🔹 🌐 Digital humanities is not replacing traditional literary studies

“Computational methods are not taking over the humanities. The number of people who work in even the expansively defined digital humanities is modest” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
Wilkens stresses that digital methods serve as complementary tools rather than substitutes for close reading and traditional interpretive work.

🔸 📊 Quantitative methods uncover hidden patterns across scales

“What computational methods offer most directly is help identifying and assessing literary patterns at scales from the individual text to whole fields” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
This insight points to the capacity of digital tools to manage overwhelming volumes of literary data.

🔹 📏 Literary arguments often rely on implicit quantification

“Literary scholars often underestimate… their claims are implicitly quantitative, pattern-based, and dependent on reductive models” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 13).
Wilkens calls for making these implicit models explicit through computation for conceptual and evidentiary clarity.

🔸 🧠 Computational criticism offers new forms of evidence

“These methods produce new types of evidence that can be used… to pursue humanistic work in richer, more inclusive ways” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
He underscores that computational methods enrich—not reduce—the possibilities for interpretation.


🧪 Case Studies & Methodologies

🔹 🧬 Topological Reading of Goethe – Piper & Algee-Hewitt

“Topology attends to the recurrence of words… It shows us how the patterns of lexical repetition within texts produce meanings” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 13).
They track word-frequency patterns in Goethe’s works to explore continuity between early and late writings.

🔸 🌀 Deformance: Reading via algorithmic rearrangement

“The deformative nature of computational criticism… provides the opportunity to read that corpus as a newly estranged object” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 15).
This enables a refreshed critical perspective by reshuffling and re-clustering textual segments.

🔹 🌍 Network analysis of modernist poetry – So & Long

“They visualize their data… showing differences among poetic networks in the U.S., Japan, and China” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 16).
Their use of metadata highlights the social infrastructure of literary production and the role of “brokers” (e.g., Amy Lowell).

🔸 🗺️ Literary geography and place-based analysis

“More than forty percent of all location mentions [in Civil War-era U.S. fiction] fell outside the boundaries of the United States” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 18).
Wilkens’ own work illustrates how geographic data reveals shifts in literary attention and national imagination.


⚠️ Challenges and Future Directions

🔹 🧾 Copyright & Data Accessibility

“It can be difficult to assemble suitable corpora for computational analysis… especially after 1923” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 19).
Legal restrictions limit large-scale literary research, although efforts like HathiTrust are helping.

🔸 👩🏫 Training & Disciplinary Conservatism

“Few scholars in the humanities… have been trained in the skills and methods necessary for computational work” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 19).
Humanities departments need to incorporate more technical training to empower future scholars.

🔹 🌐 Multilingual Data and Comparatist Challenges

“It’s generally difficult to compare the results… in different languages” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 20).
Despite obstacles, comparatists are uniquely positioned to address multilingual complexity in computational research.


📚 Conclusion: Why It Matters

“Systems of literary production may be made of books, but they are not themselves books any more than an elephant is a very large pile of cells” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 18).
Wilkens powerfully asserts that understanding literary systems requires macro-level analysis, and digital humanities offers tools for precisely that. These approaches are not about replacing interpretation but expanding it with broader, structural insights.


Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
🌟 Term 📘 Explanation🛠️ Usage in the Article
💻 Digital Humanities (DH)Interdisciplinary field combining computational methods with humanities research.Wilkens positions DH as a complementary approach that offers “a new set of methods for dealing with…abundance” in literary studies (p. 12).
📊 Computational Literary StudiesUsing data-driven tools to analyze texts and literary patterns.Helps identify “patterns at scales from the individual text to whole fields” (p. 12). Offers alternative forms of evidence to support literary arguments.
🔢 QuantificationThe transformation of textual phenomena into measurable data.Wilkens explains how literary analysis is often already “implicitly quantitative” and calls for making this explicit in scholarship (p. 13).
🧭 Topological ReadingTracing word co-occurrence patterns to map text similarity and thematic flow.Used by Piper & Algee-Hewitt to analyze Goethe’s corpus by comparing word frequency patterns, forming clusters via Euclidean distances (p. 13–14).
🧩 DeformanceAltering or rearranging texts to uncover hidden or estranged meanings.Enables critics to “read that corpus as a newly estranged object,” shifting away from normative interpretations (p. 15).
🔗 Network AnalysisModeling relationships (authors, texts, journals) using nodes and edges.So & Long use it to visualize modernist literary networks, showing connections and clusters among poets and journals (p. 16).
🌉 BrokerageA role in network theory connecting otherwise unlinked clusters.“Brokers” like Amy Lowell bridge poetic communities, showing alternative models of influence and marginality in literary history (p. 16).
🧠 Systems TheoryStudying dynamic, interrelated structures rather than isolated components.Wilkens connects DH to systems theory in addressing macro-level questions in world literature and longue durée literary history (p. 13).
🗺️ Geographic MappingSpatial visualization of literary settings and references.Wilkens’ own mapping of Civil War-era fiction reveals a “transatlantic and international literary-geographic investment” (p. 18).
📁 Metadata AnalysisAnalyzing data about texts (e.g., publication dates, authorship), not content.So & Long rely on metadata from literary journals to construct comparative poetic networks across nations and languages (p. 17).
Contribution of “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens to Literary Theory/Theories

🔍 💡 Structuralism & Post-Structuralism

  • Wilkens contributes to structuralist methods by advocating for system-based analysis of literature.
  • He emphasizes that patterns and structures can be mapped computationally, aligning with the structuralist focus on underlying systems.

“You will… have built an abstractly quantifiable model of your problem domain and of your texts’ place within it” (p. 13).

  • He moves beyond textual internalism by including metadata, geography, and networks, thus approaching post-structuralist decentralization of the literary object.

🌐 🌍 World Literature & Comparative Literature

  • The article reorients comparative literature around quantifiable, transnational patterns, contributing to debates in World Literature.

“Questions best suited to computational analysis—including those falling under the headings of world literature and longue durée literary history” (p. 13).

  • Digital methods reveal connections across linguistic and national boundaries, reinforcing the global scope of comparatist inquiry.

📈 📊 Literary Sociology / Bourdieusian Theory

  • Wilkens draws from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory indirectly via discussion of social roles like “brokers.”

“Brokers… served to connect otherwise disparate coteries” (p. 16).

  • So & Long’s network analysis maps literary capital and influence, challenging hierarchical canon models and highlighting social position over prestige.

🗺️ 🧭 Spatial Literary Theory / Literary Geography

  • Using place-name analysis and mapping, Wilkens adds to spatial theory by showing how geographic orientation reflects literary and cultural ideologies.

“More than forty percent of all location mentions [in Civil War-era fiction] fell outside the boundaries of the United States” (p. 18).

  • This supports transnationalism, shifting attention from canonical centers like New England to broader spatial fields.

📐 🔬 Formalism & Close Reading (Deformance)

  • Supports a post-formalist view: computational methods estrange the text and offer “deformative” readings (Stephen Ramsay, Lisa Samuels).

“Allows them to read that corpus as a newly estranged object” (p. 15).

  • Opens space for innovative close readings grounded in algorithmic output, connecting macro-level data to micro-level interpretation.

🔗 🧠 Systems Theory

  • Suggests the need for explicit engagement between digital humanities and systems theory (Wallerstein, Luhmann).

“A more explicit engagement with systems theory will be an almost inevitable consequence of the rise of digital humanities” (p. 13).

  • Advocates for literary studies that understand literature as part of dynamic, interrelated systems, not isolated artifacts.

🧠 🌀 Historiographic & Longue Durée Literary Theory

  • Wilkens shows how DH methods contribute to long-term literary historical studies by revealing trends across centuries.

“Computational work has already begun to deliver… the prospects for future advances are especially bright” (p. 12).

  • Influenced by Franco Moretti’s distant reading, the article supports shifting from close reading of a few to distant reading of many.

💬 🎭 Reader-Response Theory

  • While not a direct focus, the article indirectly expands reader-response theory by altering what “counts” as readable material.
  • Algorithms generate “texts” (clusters, networks, maps) that are interpreted by scholars, making the reader’s role active in reassembling meaning.
Examples of Critiques Through “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
📖 Work🧰 DH Method Used🧠 Critical Insight / Interpretation
📕 The Sorrows of Young Werther (Goethe)🧭 Topological Reading (Piper & Algee-Hewitt)Tracks lexical patterns across Goethe’s works, revealing continuity between early and late styles via word clusters.
🗺️ Civil War-Era American Fiction🌍 Geographic Mapping (Wilkens)Maps place names, showing transnational imagination—over 40% of locations lie outside U.S. boundaries.
🌐 U.S., Japanese & Chinese Modernist Poetry🔗 Network Analysis (So & Long)Unveils poetic social structures and identifies key brokers linking fragmented literary communities.
Werther-based Page Clusters (within Goethe’s corpus)🧩 Deformance / Variation EngineAlgorithmically rearranged pages uncover new symbolic threads (e.g., “the hand” as motif of creation).

🧠 Summary of Insights:

  • These examples showcase how digital tools extend literary theory by offering new perspectives on well-studied works.
  • Methods like deformance challenge conventional close reading, while network and spatial analyses recontextualize literary systems.
Criticism Against “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens

🔒 ⚖️ Limited Access to Data and Copyright Restrictions

  • Wilkens admits a major barrier to DH research is access to corpora, especially post-1923 copyrighted texts.

“It can be difficult to assemble suitable corpora… many texts remain in copyright” (p. 19).
This undermines scalability and inclusivity, especially for contemporary literary study.


🧪 🔍 Overreliance on Quantification

  • Though Wilkens defends computation as complementary, some critics argue it risks reducing literature to data, overlooking nuance and ambiguity.

“The need for quantitative approaches to literature is thus great indeed” (p. 13) – but not all agree this is always desirable.


📉 📚 Weak Engagement with Canonical Literary Theory

  • While the article invokes systems theory and sociology, it sidesteps direct, in-depth dialogue with literary theorists (e.g., Derrida, Foucault, Barthes), possibly alienating traditional theorists.

🌍 🧭 Language and Multilingual Barriers Remain Underdeveloped

  • Wilkens notes multilingual DH is challenging but doesn’t offer practical frameworks for linguistic equivalence.

“It’s generally difficult to compare… in different languages” (p. 20).
Comparative literature requires more than structural mapping—it needs cross-cultural interpretive nuance.


🎯 🎲 Overgeneralization of Patterns as Literary Meaning

  • There’s a risk of reifying patterns (like word frequency or network centrality) as literary insights without deep interpretive justification.
  • Critics may argue that this flattens textual richness and mimics positivist fallacies.

🧩 🗣️ Limited Role for Reader and Subjectivity

  • The approach may marginalize reader-response theory and personal engagement with texts.
    Digital tools shape what gets read and how—raising questions about who interprets the machines.

🖇️ 📎 Methodology > Meaning?

  • Some may critique the article’s tone as too invested in showcasing methods rather than exploring what those methods mean for literary value, ethics, or pedagogy.

🧱 🎓 Institutional & Training Gap

  • Wilkens acknowledges that most humanities scholars lack training in digital methods—but doesn’t deeply address how to bridge this divide in sustainable, equitable ways.

“There are few scholars in the humanities who have been trained in the skills… necessary for computational work” (p. 19).


Representative Quotations from “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens with Explanation
No📖 Quotation💡 Explanation / Insight
📌1“Computational methods are not taking over the humanities.” (p. 12)Opens with a reassurance to traditional scholars—DH complements rather than replaces close reading and humanistic traditions.
🔍2“These methods produce new types of evidence… to pursue humanistic work in richer, more inclusive ways.” (p. 12)Emphasizes the inclusive potential of DH by expanding the scope of inquiry across previously unmanageable corpora.
📊3“Literary scholars often underestimate… their claims are implicitly quantitative.” (p. 13)Points out that many literary arguments already involve data-like reasoning, even when unstated—justifying DH’s formal role.
📐4“You will… have built an abstractly quantifiable model of your problem domain.” (p. 13)Highlights how critical interpretation often simplifies and models texts implicitly, suggesting it’s beneficial to make that explicit.
💾5“The need for quantitative approaches to literature is thus great indeed.” (p. 13)A call to integrate data-driven methods to manage the overwhelming volume of modern literary production.
🔗6“A more explicit engagement with systems theory will be an almost inevitable consequence of the rise of digital humanities.” (p. 13)Argues that DH naturally aligns with systems theory due to its macro-level focus on literary networks and structures.
🧩7“The deformative nature of computational criticism… provides the opportunity to read that corpus as a newly estranged object.” (p. 15)Refers to “deformance” as a way to algorithmically alter texts and generate new interpretive possibilities.
🌐8“So and Long… reveal important differences among their three national contexts.” (p. 16)Shows how DH methods like network analysis can yield comparative insights into global literary systems.
🗺️9“More than forty percent of all location mentions fell outside the boundaries of the United States.” (p. 18)Wilkens’ own spatial mapping shows that 19th-century U.S. fiction had strong international and transatlantic orientations.
🐘10“Systems of literary production may be made of books, but they are not themselves books any more than an elephant is a very large pile of cells.” (p. 18)Uses metaphor to argue that literature must be studied systemically—individual readings alone are insufficient.
Suggested Readings: “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture” by Matthew Wilkens
  1. WILKENS, MATTHEW. “Digital Humanities and Its Application in the Study of Literature and Culture.” Comparative Literature, vol. 67, no. 1, 2015, pp. 11–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24694545. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  2. Reese, Ashley N. “Pollyanna’s Intergenerational Gladness: Examining Porter’s Novels In The Digital Humanities.” Intergenerational Solidarity in Children’s Literature and Film, edited by JUSTYNA DESZCZ-TRYHUBCZAK and ZOE JAQUES, University Press of Mississippi, 2021, pp. 18–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1fkgcgc.6. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  3. Svensson, Patrik. “Making Digital Humanities.” Big Digital Humanities: Imagining a Meeting Place for the Humanities and the Digital, University of Michigan Press, 2016, pp. 172–221. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65sx0t.9. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  4. Svensson, Patrik. “Introducing the Digital Humanities.” Big Digital Humanities: Imagining a Meeting Place for the Humanities and the Digital, University of Michigan Press, 2016, pp. 1–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65sx0t.5. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.

“Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall: Summary and Critique

“Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall first appeared in Media, Culture & Society in 1980 (Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 57–72).

"Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms" by Stuart Hall: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall

“Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall first appeared in Media, Culture & Society in 1980 (Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 57–72). Published by SAGE, this seminal essay is foundational in establishing the theoretical coordinates of Cultural Studies as an academic field. Hall distinguishes between two major paradigms that shaped the emergence of Cultural Studies: the culturalist and structuralist approaches. Drawing from the works of Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggart, and E.P. Thompson, the culturalist paradigm emphasizes lived experience, historical agency, and the “structure of feeling” through which culture is seen as a site of shared meanings and values embedded in everyday life. In contrast, the structuralist paradigm, informed by Marxism, semiotics, and Althusserian theory, focuses on ideology, language, and the underlying structures that shape consciousness and practice, often decentering the subject. Hall explores the tensions and productive dialectics between these paradigms, arguing that while neither alone suffices, together they define the central problematic of Cultural Studies: how to theorize the relationship between culture, ideology, social structure, and historical process without succumbing to either reductionist determinism or naïve humanism. The essay’s importance lies in its reflective stance toward the field’s intellectual formation and its call for a nuanced materialist theory of culture that embraces both practice and structure, agency and determination. It continues to be a touchstone in literary theory and interdisciplinary cultural analysis.

Summary of “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall

🔀 Paradigm Shifts and Intellectual Breaks

Hall begins by stating that cultural studies arose from historical ruptures, not linear evolution:

“Significant breaks—where old lines of thought are disrupted… provide Thought… with its fundamental orientations” (p. 57).


⚖️ Two Foundational Paradigms: Culturalism vs. Structuralism

Hall outlines a contrast between two approaches:

  • Culturalism: Focuses on lived experience, human agency, and cultural production.
  • Structuralism: Focuses on systems, ideologies, and unconscious structures.

“They address what must be the core problem of Cultural Studies” (p. 72).


🧑🌾 Culturalism: Emphasis on Experience & Practice

Rooted in the works of Williams, Hoggart, and Thompson, culturalism treats culture as something people do and live:

“Culture is ordinary” (Williams, as cited in Hall, p. 55).
“Every mode of production is also a culture” (p. 64).


🧠 Raymond Williams & the ‘Structure of Feeling’

Williams emphasized interconnectedness across all practices—cultural, economic, familial—viewing them as expressions of a lived totality:

“The structure of feeling… threads through all social practices” (p. 60–61).


🏭 E.P. Thompson & Class-Conscious Experience

Thompson saw culture as emerging from class conflict and experience:

“Every struggle between classes is always also a struggle between cultural modalities” (p. 64).
He insisted on culture as a dialectic between “being” and “consciousness” (p. 63).


🧩 Structuralism: Language, Ideology & the Unconscious

Figures like Althusser and Levi-Strauss argued that experience is produced by ideological frameworks:

“Experience… is not a ground but an effect” (p. 66).
“Ideology is… structures that impose on men… within this ideological unconsciousness” (Althusser, as cited in Hall, p. 66).


🏛️ Gramsci’s Hegemony: A Middle Ground

Gramsci helps reconcile the two paradigms through the concept of hegemony—how power is maintained through cultural leadership and consent:

“No dominant culture… exhausts human practice, human energy, human intention” (p. 62).


🧮 Theoretical Abstraction vs. Lived Reality

Hall critiques over-reliance on either rigid abstraction (structuralism) or unmediated experience (culturalism):

“The power of abstraction must replace both [microscopes and reagents]” (Marx, as cited in Hall, p. 68).


🌐 Toward a Dialectical Cultural Theory

Hall emphasizes that culture must be studied through its contradictions, interactions, and articulations—not reduced to base or superstructure:

“They pose… the problems consequent on trying to think both the specificity of different practices and the forms of the articulated unity they constitute” (p. 72).


🧭 Conclusion: No Final Synthesis, But a Productive Tension

Hall concludes that while neither paradigm is sufficient on its own, their interplay defines the intellectual terrain of Cultural Studies:

“In Cultural Studies, theirs are the ‘names of the game'” (p. 72).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall
Term/ConceptExplanationUsage in Article
CulturalismEmphasizes lived experience, culture as everyday practice, and human agency.Culturalism centers “experience” and “lived traditions” as authentic sources of culture and meaning.
StructuralismFocuses on underlying systems, structures, and ideologies shaping cultural forms.Critiqued for decentering agency and replacing experience with unconscious structures and ideologies.
Base/SuperstructureMarxist model where economic base determines cultural/political superstructures.Hall critiques this model for being overly reductive and favoring determinism.
OverdeterminationMultiple causes shaping social phenomena—no single, linear determinism.Borrowed from Althusser to explain complex social and ideological formations.
ArticulationHow different elements (practices, discourses) are linked together in a structured whole.Enables thinking of culture as neither fully determined nor autonomous.
HegemonyGramsci’s idea of cultural leadership and negotiated dominance.Used to analyze how dominant culture integrates residual/emergent forms through consent.
IdeologySystems of representation that mediate people’s relation to their material conditions.Althusser’s notion of ideology as an “imaginary relationship to real conditions” is examined.
Structure of FeelingRaymond Williams’ term for emergent, affective elements of cultural life.Describes the lived, non-systematized relations within a cultural moment.
SubjectivityThe formation of individuals within discursive and ideological structures.Structuralism sees the subject as “spoken by” culture, while culturalism emphasizes conscious agency.
AbstractionThe theoretical process of simplifying complexity to study underlying structures.Structuralism is praised for abstraction, but criticized for privileging it over historical concreteness.
PraxisHuman activity that is both thought and action—central to Marxist theory.Culturalists see culture as human praxis; structuralists critique this for being idealist or voluntarist.
TotalityThe whole structure of society, seen as interconnected but not necessarily homogeneous.Hall explores the possibility of a unity in difference—especially via Gramsci and overdetermination.

Contribution of “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall to Literary Theory/Theories

🧠 Reader-Response Theory

  • Hall emphasizes “experience” and lived culture as central to meaning-making, aligning with the reader-response focus on interpretation by audiences.
  • Quote: “It is, ultimately, where and how people experience their conditions of life, define them and respond to them…”
  • Contribution: Legitimizes the audience’s role in producing meaning, not just the author’s intent or the text itself.

📚 🧬 New Historicism

  • Hall’s insistence on culture as interwoven with historical practices mirrors New Historicism’s commitment to contextualizing texts.
  • Quote: “Culture… is the sum of their inter-relationship… as lived and experienced as a whole, in any particular period.”
  • Contribution: Grounds textual meaning in specific historical conditions and power relations, challenging textual autonomy.

🏛️ ⚙️ Marxist Literary Theory

  • Hall critiques the traditional base/superstructure model, proposing instead concepts like hegemony, overdetermination, and praxis.
  • Quote: “We cannot separate literature and art from other kinds of social practice… subject to quite special and distinct laws.”
  • Contribution: Modernizes Marxist literary theory by highlighting cultural struggle, ideological formations, and relative autonomy of culture.

🎭 🧩 Structuralism & Poststructuralism

  • Hall explores the limits of structuralist determinism, notably critiquing Althusser and highlighting the rise of discourse and subjectivity.
  • Quote: “Whereas in ‘culturalism’, experience was the ground… structuralism insisted that ‘experience’ could not, by definition, be the ground of anything.”
  • Contribution: Provides a bridge between structuralist order and poststructuralist decentering, especially in cultural and textual analysis.

🧠 📖 Cultural Criticism / Cultural Studies in Literary Theory

  • The essay refounds literary criticism within broader cultural studies, dismantling elite notions of literature.
  • Quote: “Culture is not a practice… It is threaded through all social practices.”
  • Contribution: Opens up literary texts to analysis through race, class, gender, ideology, and lived experience.

👑 🔍 Ideological Critique

  • Integrates Althusser’s view that texts are ideological forms, not neutral vessels of meaning.
  • Quote: “Ideologies are… the unconscious categories through which conditions are represented and lived.”
  • Contribution: Reinforces that texts are sites of ideological struggle, embedding them in wider systems of power.

🧩 🧱 Totality and Articulation (Gramscian Literary Theory)

  • Hall’s use of Gramsci’s hegemony and articulation helps theorize literature’s place in complex social formations.
  • Quote: “To replace the formula of base and superstructure with the more active idea of a field of mutually… determining forces.”
  • Contribution: Frames literature as interwoven with ideological, social, and political contradictions.

💡 🧍 Psychoanalytic Literary Theory (via Subjectivity)

  • Discusses the formation of subjectivity through language and discourse, aligning with psychoanalytic interpretations.
  • Quote: “The subject is ‘spoken by’ the categories of culture in which he/she thought…”
  • Contribution: Introduces concepts of the decentered subject, unconscious influence in meaning-making.

🎨 🖼️ Aesthetic Theory (Challenged)

  • Hall demystifies the privileged status of the “aesthetic,” arguing art is one form among many social practices.
  • Quote: “Art… is part of society, there is no solid whole, outside it…”
  • Contribution: Challenges formalism, shifts focus from aesthetic autonomy to cultural embeddedness.

Examples of Critiques Through “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall
📘 Literary Work🧭 Paradigm Used💬 Key Critique via Hall’s Framework
🌆 Hard Times by Charles DickensCulturalismExplores how working-class culture is shaped by industrial capitalism. The novel becomes a “structure of feeling” reflecting the lived tensions between dominant utilitarian ideologies and emergent humanist values (Hall, p. 60).
🕊️ Things Fall Apart by Chinua AchebeStructuralism (with culturalist integration)Analyzed through the conflict between traditional Igbo cultural codes and colonial structures. The text exemplifies overdetermination, where cultural breakdown is shaped by intersecting ideological and structural forces (Hall, p. 65).
🧵 The Color Purple by Alice WalkerCulturalism + HegemonyShows the struggles of Black women’s cultural identity within intersecting systems of race, class, and gender. Using Gramsci’s hegemony, Hall’s lens exposes how residual and emergent cultures resist domination (Hall, p. 63–64).
🧠 Waiting for Godot by Samuel BeckettStructuralismEmbodies decentered subjectivity and critiques the illusion of meaning and agency. Hall’s reference to ideological structures explains how the play represents subjects as “spoken by” dominant categories rather than as autonomous agents (Hall, p. 67).
Criticism Against “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall
  • 🔁 Over-Polarization of Paradigms
    Hall tends to sharply dichotomize culturalism and structuralism, which some scholars argue creates false binaries rather than allowing space for overlapping or hybrid models of interpretation.
  • 🧱 Structuralism’s “Machine-Like” Determinism
    The structuralist paradigm, as Hall describes it, is critiqued for reducing human subjects to the mere effects of structures, stripping them of agency or voice (Hall, p. 67).
  • 🧠 Neglect of Psychological and Subjective Dimensions
    Critics argue that both paradigms — especially structuralism — under-theorize subjectivity and emotion, often failing to account for the individual or affective dimensions of cultural experience.
  • 🎯 Culturalism’s Naïve Humanism
    The culturalist paradigm is seen as too optimistic, emphasizing human creativity and experience but underestimating the impact of economic and ideological constraints (Hall, p. 62–63).
  • 🧩 Lack of Synthesis or Integration
    Hall does not offer a practical or unified method for merging the strengths of both paradigms, instead pointing out their mutual inadequacies without fully resolving them.
  • 🌀 Experience as an Unstable Ground
    Critics question Hall’s reliance on “experience” in culturalism, arguing that experience is already structured by ideology, making it an unreliable foundation for analysis (Hall, p. 66).
  • ⚖️ Ambiguity in Gramscian Use
    While Hall attempts to bridge paradigms using Gramsci’s hegemony, some argue his usage remains too abstract, and doesn’t offer clear methodological tools for cultural analysis.
  • 🧾 Under-Theorization of Race and Gender
    Despite Hall’s later focus on these issues, this early work is critiqued for being Eurocentric and class-centered, offering insufficient engagement with race, gender, and postcolonial critique.
Representative Quotations from “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall with Explanation
🎯 Quotation🧠 Explanation
🔵 “Cultural studies as a distinctive problematic emerges from one such moment, in the mid-1950s.”Hall traces the origins of cultural studies to a significant historical juncture where new questions and intellectual disruptions surfaced.
🟢 “The concept of culture remains a complex one—a site of convergent interests, rather than a logically or conceptually clarified idea.”Hall stresses that “culture” cannot be pinned down easily; it’s an evolving intersection of practices, meanings, and ideologies.
🔴 “Culture is not a practice; nor is it simply the descriptive sum of the mores and folkways of societies.”He distinguishes cultural studies from anthropology by asserting that culture is dynamic and structural, not merely a record of traditions.
🟣 “The analysis of culture is, then, the attempt to discover the nature of the organization which is the complex of these relationships.”Hall outlines the methodological task of cultural studies: revealing patterns within complex social and cultural systems.
🟠 “The structure of feeling”Borrowed from Raymond Williams, this phrase describes the lived experiences and emergent meanings that define a cultural moment.
🔶 “Experience, in this sense, is not the ground of anything, but its effect.”This critique of “culturalism” aligns with structuralism: experience is shaped by deeper ideological and linguistic structures.
🟡 “Ideology is not simply false consciousness—it is lived, embodied, and practiced.”Hall expands the Marxist concept of ideology into a lived phenomenon embedded in everyday practices.
🔷 “We must find a way of thinking both the specificity of practices and the forms of the articulated unity they constitute.”He pushes for a dialectical analysis that balances individual cultural acts with overarching social structures.
🟤 “The result will inevitably be a naive humanism, with its necessary consequence: a voluntarist and populist political practice.”Hall critiques simplistic humanism, cautioning against theories that ignore structural determinants.
“In Cultural Studies, theirs are the names of the game.”Hall concludes that the ongoing debate between the culturalist and structuralist paradigms defines the field’s critical terrain.
Suggested Readings: “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” by Stuart Hall
  1. Kenneth Surin. “‘MARXISM, WITHOUT GUARANTEES’: WHAT I LEARNED FROM STUART HALL.” Cultural Critique, vol. 89, 2015, pp. 136–49. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/culturalcritique.89.2015.0136. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  2. HALL, STUART. “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms.” Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, edited by NICHOLAS B. DIRKS et al., vol. 12, Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 520–38. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ddd17k.22. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  3. Peck, Janice. “Itinerary of a Thought: Stuart Hall, Cultural Studies, and the Unresolved Problem of the Relation of Culture to ‘Not Culture.'” Cultural Critique, no. 48, 2001, pp. 200–49. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354401. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  4. Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms [1980].” Essential Essays, Volume 1: Foundations of Cultural Studies, edited by David Morley, Duke University Press, 2019, pp. 47–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw7c7.8. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.

“Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube: Summary and Critique

“Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Bérubé first appeared in Comparative Literature Studies, Volume 42, Number 2, in 2005, published by the Penn State University Press.

"Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?" by Michael Berube: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  

“Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Bérubé first appeared in Comparative Literature Studies, Volume 42, Number 2, in 2005, published by the Penn State University Press. In this influential article, Bérubé explores the long-standing disconnection between the fields of cultural studies and comparative literature, arguing that their historical divergence is largely due to institutional accidents rather than fundamental intellectual incompatibilities. He revisits the theoretical lineage of both disciplines—structuralism and deconstruction for comparative literature, British Marxism and post-Marxism for cultural studies—while asserting that their mutual transformation in recent decades makes this a crucial moment for interdisciplinary dialogue. The piece sets the stage for a series of essays that explore the intersections of literary form and cultural difference, such as the aesthetics of trauma, Orientalism, performativity in testimonio, and the sentimentality in colonial discourse. Through these case studies, Bérubé emphasizes that literature and culture are not only analyzable through distinct theoretical lenses but are also co-constitutive forces. The importance of this article lies in its call to reimagine the disciplines not as rivals but as complementary inquiries into textuality and social meaning—bridging gaps that have limited scholarly collaboration. Ultimately, Bérubé invites scholars to embrace a hybrid space that acknowledges the anti-disciplinarity of literature itself.

Summary of “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  

🔗 Introduction: Disconnected Fields with Shared Potential
Michael Bérubé opens by reflecting on the surprising lack of engagement between cultural studies and comparative literature, despite both disciplines being invested in analyzing cultural texts. He observes that their mutual isolation in the U.S. stems more from “accidents of institutional history” than from theoretical incompatibilities (Bérubé, 2005, p. 126).

“Two fields with uncertain boundaries… might plausibly speak to (or merely about) each other more often” (p. 125).


📖 Disciplinary Lineages and Their Institutional Separation
Bérubé critiques how major intellectual movements have become anchored in particular literary periods and departments—for example, structuralism with comparative literature and British Marxism with cultural studies. He argues that this division is contingent and not intellectually necessary (p. 126).

“There does not seem to be any reason why cultural studies and comparative literature have had so little to do with one another… apart from the accidents of institutional history” (p. 126).


💣 War, Trauma, and Urban Archives (Saint-Amour)
Paul K. Saint-Amour examines literature’s response to aerial bombing and interwar trauma, describing a “pre-traumatic stress syndrome.” He analyzes novels like Mrs. Dalloway and Berlin Alexanderplatz as efforts to preserve urban memory against the threat of erasure (p. 126–127).

“A condition of hideously prolonged expectation… the advance symptom of a disaster still to come” (Saint-Amour, in Bérubé, p. 126).


🌏 Modernism, Orientalism, and Cultural Irony (Bush)
Christopher Bush connects modernist aesthetics with Orientalist critique, focusing on Wilde and Barthes. He argues that cultural forms and literary form are “mutually constitutive,” challenging the idea that aestheticism and cultural analysis are opposed (p. 127).

“Literary form and cultural difference are not only not mutually exclusive, they are often mutually constitutive” (Bush, in Bérubé, p. 127).


🎤 Testimonio as Performance and Literary Form (Brooks)
Linda Brooks explores the testimonio as a hybrid form of subaltern narrative and literary performance. She contends that performance theories have overlooked this genre’s complexity and that editorial mediation plays a critical role in shaping voice and authority (p. 128).

“Testimonios languish for lack of serious study as literary works” (Brooks, in Bérubé, p. 128).


🔥 Sentiment, Sati, and the Cross-Cultural Gaze (Herman)
Jeanette Herman interrogates British sentimental narratives about the Hindu sati ritual. Through works like The Suttee; or, the Hindoo Converts, she highlights how British and Hindu women are rendered emotionally similar, complicating colonial discourses (p. 128).

“Mainwaring represents [sati] as horrible, but… as the basis for a similarity of feeling between British and Hindu women” (Herman, in Bérubé, p. 128).


🏛️ Exhibitions, Empire, and Pan-American Revisions (Fojas)
Camilla Fojas contrasts the pessimism of Henry Adams with the optimism of Aurelia Castillo de González at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. González reimagines the Exposition not as imperial spectacle but as a blueprint for Latin American modernity (p. 129).

“A how-to manual of Pan-American modernity” (Fojas, in Bérubé, p. 129).


🌀 Deconstruction and the Crisis of Literary Foundations (Machosky)
Brenda Machosky concludes the issue by asserting that literature resists disciplinary containment. Drawing on de Man, Kafka, and Kamuf, she frames literature as a space of anti-disciplinarity, where the hunger for meaning remains unresolved (p. 129).

“Literature demands hunger, and we cannot fast in the presence of literature any more than we can feast on it” (Machosky, in Bérubé, p. 129).


⚖️ Conclusion: A Moment for Crossroads, Not Closure
Bérubé ends by calling for meaningful exchange between cultural studies and comparative literature. With both disciplines having evolved significantly, he sees this as a timely opportunity to “build a crossroads” rather than maintain rigid boundaries (p. 126).

“Both fields have been radically opened and significantly transformed… the moment is propitious for building a crossroads” (p. 126).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  
🌟 Concept / Term📚 Definition🧩 Usage in the Article
🧱 Institutional HistoryThe legacy of how academic disciplines develop within universities, often shaping research and pedagogy.Bérubé argues that the separation between cultural studies and comparative literature is less theoretical and more due to “accidents of institutional history” (p. 126).
🌀 Anti-disciplinarityThe resistance to fixed academic boundaries or classifications; crossing or destabilizing disciplines.Highlighted in Machosky’s essay, who insists that literature, by nature, resists categorization and demands a space beyond “institutional bookkeeping” (p. 129).
🧠 PostmodernismA theoretical movement questioning grand narratives, objectivity, and fixed meanings in texts and culture.Bérubé mentions editing a volume on “postmodernism and the globalization of English,” seeking to differentiate it from postcolonialism (p. 125).
🌍 PostcolonialismA field analyzing the cultural legacies of colonialism and imperialism, often focused on identity and power.Central to the initial confusion Bérubé encountered, where colleagues assumed he meant postcolonialism instead of postmodernism (p. 125).
🎭 PerformativityThe concept that identity, speech, or actions are constructed through performance rather than fixed traits.Linda Brooks applies this to testimonio, treating it as “a mode of performance” rather than purely documentary truth (p. 128).
🧱 Structure of FeelingCoined by Raymond Williams, this refers to lived cultural experience and affective elements within historical contexts.Jeanette Herman analyzes how British sentimentalism shaped arguments against sati, drawing from the “residual structure of feeling” (p. 128).
🔍 OrientalismEdward Said’s theory that the West constructed a patronizing and fictional image of the East to justify dominance.Christopher Bush critiques and reframes Orientalism via ironic self-awareness in writers like Wilde and Barthes (p. 127).
Literary FormThe formal elements of literature—style, structure, genre—that shape meaning and artistic expression.Both Bush and Brooks argue that cultural difference and literary form are “mutually constitutive,” not separate domains (pp. 127–128).
🔨 Cultural DifferenceThe distinctions in values, practices, and meanings across cultures, often used in critical and comparative studies.Examined across essays as a key lens; especially in the context of modernism, Orientalism, and testimonio (pp. 127–128).
🔁 DeconstructionA theory by Derrida asserting that texts inherently contain contradictions and defy fixed interpretation.Referenced in Machosky’s reflection on literature’s instability and how the “division of literature” places the university itself “in deconstruction” (p. 129).

Contribution of “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  to Literary Theory/Theories

🎭 Performance Theory
Bérubé, via Linda Brooks’ essay on testimonio, deepens the intersection of performance studies and literary theory by framing testimonio not merely as subaltern documentation but as literary performance. This supports the idea that voice, mediation, and staging are integral to textual authority and meaning.

“Testimonio is above all a mode of performance… not subversions of its social message but vehicles of it” (Bérubé, 2005, p. 128).


📚 Formalism and Literary Form
The article challenges the binary opposition between cultural content and literary form, especially through Christopher Bush’s argument that form itself can express cultural difference. This contributes to rethinking formalism in light of postcolonial and modernist theories.

“Literary form and cultural difference… are often mutually constitutive” (p. 127).


🔍 Postcolonial Theory
Through discussions of Orientalism (Bush) and sati (Herman), Bérubé’s issue emphasizes how imperial discourse shapes literary representations. It supports Spivak’s and Said’s models of cultural analysis, but adds nuance by showing how even Western writers ironically deconstruct Orientalism from within.

Wilde and Barthes offer “self-conscious, deeply ironic invocations of Orientalism” (p. 127).


🌀 Deconstruction
Brenda Machosky’s essay revisits deconstructive theory, arguing that literature’s resistance to definition is not a weakness but its critical strength. This reflects and renews Paul de Man’s claim about the undecidability of literary meaning within institutional contexts.

“The profession of literature is in crisis… inseparable from the definition of literature, which resists being defined” (p. 129).


🧠 Modernist Literary Theory
Paul Saint-Amour’s trauma-centered reading of modernist texts contributes to a theory of modernism as cultural archiving, rather than just aesthetic innovation. This expands modernist theory to include historical memory and urban erasure.

“Drive to archive the urban totality in the face of… wartime erasure” (p. 126).


🔗 Interdisciplinary Theory (Cultural Studies)
Bérubé’s central argument is a meta-theoretical contribution: it critiques the artificial division between cultural studies and literary theory, advocating for interdisciplinary synergy. This aligns with broader calls in new historicism and critical theory for integrative approaches.

“Both fields have been radically opened… the moment is propitious for building a crossroads” (p. 126).


🧾 ➤ Sentiment and Affect Theory
Jeanette Herman’s essay adds to affect theory by reading colonial-era sentiments not as rhetorical excess but as ideological tools in humanitarian discourse. It highlights how emotion structures both narrative and imperial politics.

“Framed by the residual structure of feeling carried over from… sensibility” (p. 128).


📊 Genre Theory / Life Writing
Brooks’ treatment of testimonio as a genre challenges the simplistic classification of non-Western texts. It calls for genre theory to account for hybrid, politically situated forms that blur the boundaries of fiction, testimony, and performance.

“Clearly literary creations… languish for lack of serious study as literary works” (p. 128).


🌍 Global English and Language Politics
Bérubé’s anecdote about postmodernism vs. postcolonialism raises questions about the globalization of English as a literary medium. This contributes to debates on linguistic imperialism, postcolonial identity, and world literature.

“The sun has long since set on the British Empire but still never sets on the English language” (p. 125).


Examples of Critiques Through “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  

🌟 Critical Work / Figure🧠 Scholar or Theorist Engaged🧩 Form of Critique💡 Significance
📘 Orientalism by Edward SaidChristopher BushChallenges Said’s totalizing view of Western representation of the East by examining ironic Orientalism in Wilde and Barthes.Shows that some Western texts resist Orientalist logic from within, complicating the binary of East/West and enriching postcolonial theory.
🎭 Subaltern Studies / I, Rigoberta MenchúLinda BrooksQuestions the reliability of testimonio as raw subaltern truth, reframing it as aesthetic and performative rather than transparent testimony.Suggests that genre and editorial intervention shape the subaltern voice, demanding more nuanced literary readings of testimonio.
🌀 The Division of Literature (Peggy Kamuf / Paul de Man)Brenda MachoskyReinforces but also extends deconstruction’s claim that literature defies stable institutional definition.Advocates anti-disciplinarity as a literary strength and criticizes efforts to narrowly define the literary discipline in academia.
💥 Sati and Empire Discourse (Spivak, Mani, Rajan)Jeanette HermanMoves beyond Spivak’s “white men saving brown women” framework by foregrounding white women–brown women sentiment exchanges.Adds depth to postcolonial feminist theory by highlighting affect and gendered empathy in colonial literature.
Criticism Against “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  

🧩 Lack of Concrete Integration Models
While Bérubé calls for a “crossroads” between cultural studies and comparative literature, he doesn’t outline specific methodologies or frameworks for meaningful interdisciplinary integration. This leaves the practical implementation of his vision vague.

The article is rich in theoretical potential but limited in structural proposals for actual curriculum or research integration.


🎯 Disciplinary Blind Spots Remain
Despite his critique of institutional divisions, Bérubé still upholds binary language by frequently framing the two disciplines as opposites or strangers. This may reproduce the very dichotomy he wants to dissolve.

Even as he calls for dialogue, his framing reinforces the notion that cultural studies and comparative literature are fundamentally distinct.


📚 Over-Reliance on Canonical Western Theorists
Though the article engages with critical theories like Orientalism and deconstruction, it still privileges voices like de Man, Kamuf, and Wilde, potentially marginalizing non-Western or decolonial scholars who could better embody the convergence Bérubé seeks.

A truly comparative or cultural approach might benefit from including more indigenous, diasporic, or global South perspectives.


🌀 Absence of Student or Pedagogical Perspective
Bérubé’s discussion is framed largely within institutional and intellectual histories, with little attention to how these theoretical crossroads might impact pedagogy, student experience, or academic training.

There’s little reflection on how students and teachers actually engage across disciplines in classrooms or curricula.


🧱 Underestimates Disciplinary Power Structures
His optimistic tone may underplay the entrenched power hierarchies and politics of university departments that inhibit interdisciplinary collaboration, such as tenure criteria, funding, or gatekeeping.

Institutional histories are acknowledged but not sufficiently critiqued in terms of structural barriers.


⚖️ Theoretical Generalization of Essays
Although Bérubé introduces six rich essays, his overview often flattens their individual complexity to fit the broader theme of disciplinary convergence.

The nuances and contradictions within each essay’s argument risk being lost under the umbrella of “comparative cultural insight.”


🛑 Silence on Digital Humanities and New Media
Given the growing relevance of media studies and digital culture, the essay misses an opportunity to explore how these evolving domains intersect with or challenge the frameworks of both cultural studies and comparative literature.

Representative Quotations from “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  with Explanation
🌟 Quotation🧠 Explanation / Significance
🔗 “Two fields with uncertain boundaries… might plausibly speak to (or merely about) each other more often.”Bérubé frames cultural studies and comparative literature as adjacent yet siloed disciplines overdue for dialogue.
🌍 “The sun has long since set on the British Empire but still never sets on the English language.”Illustrates the enduring global influence of English despite the fall of colonial empires—linking language and empire.
🏛️ “Accidents of institutional history… are not… a sufficient explanation for why they have run in parallel.”Challenges the idea that disciplinary separation is natural or fixed—calling for rethinking academic silos.
📚 “This moment is propitious for building a crossroads.”A metaphorical call to action: now is the time for interdisciplinary synthesis between these two fields.
🎭 “Testimonios languish for lack of serious study as literary works.”Linda Brooks critiques the neglect of testimonio as literature—advocating for aesthetic recognition.
🎨 “Literary form and cultural difference are… mutually constitutive.”Christopher Bush’s key intervention: form is not separate from culture, but shaped by and shaping it.
🧱 “The profession of literature is in crisis… because it lacks a stable ground upon which to stand.”Brenda Machosky captures the ontological uncertainty of literary studies, resisting disciplinary containment.
🔁 “From the ontological to the ontic, from alterity to mere difference.”Bush’s move to deconstruct the binary of Otherness, focusing on difference without exoticism.
💬 “Division of literature… has put the university itself in deconstruction.”Kamuf’s notion cited by Machosky: literature’s instability destabilizes academic structures too.
🍽️ “We cannot fast in the presence of literature any more than we can feast on it.”A poetic close—literature resists consumption or renunciation, demanding intellectual hunger and humility.

Suggested Readings: “Cultural Studies or Comparative Literature?” by Michael Berube  
  1. Bérubé, Michael. “Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature?” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, 2005, pp. 125–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40247472. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  2. Zhang, Yehong, and Gerhard Lauer. “Introduction: Cross-Cultural Reading.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 54, no. 4, 2017, pp. 693–701. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/complitstudies.54.4.0693. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.
  3. ARENS, KATHERINE. “When Comparative Literature Becomes Cultural Studies: Teaching Cultures through Genre.” The Comparatist, vol. 29, 2005, pp. 123–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26237106. Accessed 5 Apr. 2025.

“The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton: Summary and Critique

“The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton first appeared in 1997 in the journal New Literary History (Vol. 28, No. 1), a special issue titled Cultural Studies: China and the West, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

"The Contradictions of Postmodernism" by Terry Eagleton: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton

“The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton first appeared in 1997 in the journal New Literary History (Vol. 28, No. 1), a special issue titled Cultural Studies: China and the West, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. In this incisive and polemical essay, Eagleton critiques the ideological assumptions and internal inconsistencies of postmodernism, especially as it manifests in the Western cultural left. He argues that postmodernism, while appearing radical in its celebration of plurality, fluidity, and cultural difference, paradoxically mirrors the logic of advanced capitalism, becoming both a critique and a reinforcement of the status quo. Culturalism—one of his key targets—is shown to be as reductive in its emphasis on the socially constructed as economism is in its materialism, thereby sidelining common human realities. Eagleton also challenges the idea that historicism or cultural marginality is inherently subversive, exposing these claims as forms of formalist illusion lacking substantive political critique. By showing how postmodernism has shifted from being a space of resistance to one of commodified integration, Eagleton underscores the complicity of culture in global capitalist reproduction. The importance of this article lies in its forceful reassertion of a materialist and dialectical critique at a time when postmodern relativism dominated literary and cultural theory. It remains a foundational work for scholars interrogating the intersections of ideology, cultural politics, and late capitalism.

Summary of “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton

🔴 Postmodernism Mirrors Capitalism, Not Opposes It
Eagleton argues that postmodernism is both a critique of and complicit in capitalist ideology. It mimics the logic of the market with its celebration of fluidity, plurality, and relativism, thus undercutting its own radical potential. He writes:

“Postmodernism is both radical and conservative together, springing as it does from this structural contradiction at the core of advanced capitalism itself” (Eagleton, 1997, p. 5).
Rather than being a force of resistance, postmodern culture has become a commodity, functioning “thoroughly under the sway of the commodity form” (p. 3).

🟢 Culturalism Is a Reductive Ideology
Eagleton critiques culturalism—the belief that everything is culturally constructed—as just another “ism”, as reductive as biologism or economism:

“Culturalism inflates the importance of what is constructed…as against what human beings have in common as natural material animals” (p. 1).
This form of thinking ignores shared material conditions and can be just as politically neutral or conservative as other ideologies.

🔵 Historicism Is Not Inherently Radical
Eagleton also challenges the assumption that historicism naturally aligns with leftist or progressive politics. He states:

“Much historicism in Europe has been firmly in possession of political conservatism” (p. 2),
reminding readers that historical awareness alone does not guarantee subversive or liberatory outcomes.

🟣 Culture as a Site of Contradiction
In postmodern society, culture becomes both a means of resistance and domination. Eagleton traces this back to a re-merging of the symbolic and the economic, where art and culture no longer sit outside the marketplace:

“Cultural production rejoins general production…now thoroughly under the sway of the commodity form” (p. 3).
Thus, culture no longer offers refuge or critical distance but becomes entangled with the very forces it critiques.

🟡 The Irony of Postmodernism’s Global Export
He highlights the irony that postmodernism, which preaches difference, contributes to cultural homogenization, especially in emerging economies like China:

“Postmodern theory has arrived along with the latest shipment of Coca-Cola” (p. 6).
This philosophy of difference is paradoxically used to universalize Western norms in the name of pluralism.

🟠 The Enlightenment Debate: Gains vs. Losses
Eagleton argues for a dialectical view of Enlightenment, recognizing both its emancipatory aspirations and historical failures:

“The doctrine which has traditionally tried to redeem the positive kernel of Enlightenment…is known as socialism” (p. 6).
He cautions that postmodern rejection of Enlightenment risks losing its most valuable legacies, such as civil liberties and universal rights.

🟤 Postmodern Culture as Ideological Displacement
Culture, Eagleton explains, has become a primary terrain of political struggle, especially in the wake of the decline of classical class-based politics:

“Culture becomes part of the very terms in which political interests articulate themselves” (p. 4).
This shift is seen both as an enrichment and a distraction, potentially displacing more direct forms of material struggle.

Subversion and Plurality Are Not Automatically Radical
Eagleton dismantles the myth that all forms of difference and marginality are inherently progressive:

“There is nothing automatically radical about either margins or minorities… some forms of plurality are radical, whereas others are as native to the free market as violence is to the United States” (p. 2).
He insists that political content matters more than formal characteristics like difference or hybridity.


Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton
Term / ConceptUsage and Explanation in the Article
PostmodernismDescribed as both radical and conservative. It mirrors the fluidity of capitalism while claiming to oppose it: “The answer to the question of whether postmodernism is radical or conservative can only be a firm yes and no.”
CulturalismCritiqued as a reductive doctrine that overemphasizes cultural construction and downplays material commonalities: “Culturalism inflates the importance of what is constructed… as against what human beings have in common as natural material animals.”
HistoricismNot inherently radical. Conservatives also use history to support their ideologies: “Much historicism in Europe has been firmly in possession of political conservatism.”
Commodity FormCultural production is now fully embedded in capitalist commodity exchange: “Cultural production rejoins general production… now thoroughly under the sway of the commodity form.”
EnlightenmentTreated dialectically—both as a source of emancipation and oppression. Postmodernism discards it, but Eagleton suggests salvaging its positive aspects through socialism.
IdeologyNot always based on naturalization. Ideological positions may be openly constructed and contingent: “One can be a doughty defender of capitalism or Stalinism without suffering from the delusion that things were always like that.”
Pluralism / DifferenceDifference is not automatically radical. Market capitalism thrives on certain types of pluralism: “Some forms of plurality are radical, whereas others are as native to the free market as violence is to the United States.”
EpistemologyUsed to critique thinkers like Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty, who tie relativist knowledge frameworks to conservative or liberal politics.
NaturalizingPostmodernists mistake all appeals to nature as ideological, forgetting that Enlightenment radicalism used nature as a leveling force: “They have demonized all appeals to the natural as insidiously naturalizing.”
Superstructure / BaseRevisits Marxist theory to show how capitalist economies require ideological superstructures to justify themselves: “Their ideological superstructures… will need to insist upon absolute values.”
Use-value vs Exchange-valueOnce oppositional, art is now commodified, mimicking exchange-value: “The art… turns out to be just another modality of [exchange-value].”
Stageist TheoryCritiqued as Eurocentric and impractical. Suggests China must experience modernity before postmodernity, which Eagleton views as problematic: “Stageist theories are always a little suspect.”
Modernity / PremodernityDescribes the transition from traditional societies to modern capitalism and then postmodern integration of the symbolic with the economic.
Liberal HumanismSeen as outdated; it once offered utopian cultural ideals, but now fails to respond to the commodification of culture: “That faith… bred a generously Utopian lineage along with a perilously mystifying one.”
Contribution of “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

🔴 Contribution to Marxist Literary Theory
Eagleton reasserts Marxist materialism within cultural critique, arguing that postmodernism’s relativism masks deep structural contradictions of capitalism. He revives base-superstructure analysis, noting:

“The more market forces level all distinct value and identity… the more their ideological superstructures… will need to insist… upon absolute values and immutable standards” (p. 5).
Impact: Refocuses Marxist literary theory on economic determinism beneath postmodern cultural pluralism.

🟢 Critique of Postmodern Literary Theory
He delivers a foundational critique of postmodernism’s claims to radicalism, showing it to be structurally aligned with the logic of the capitalist marketplace:

“Postmodernism is both radical and conservative together… miming the logic of the capitalist marketplace itself” (p. 5).
Impact: Challenges the postmodern celebration of fragmentation and multiplicity as inherently emancipatory.

🔵 Intervention in Cultural Studies
Eagleton critiques culturalism—a core tenet in cultural studies—for its overemphasis on constructed identity and neglect of material realities:

“Culturalism inflates the importance of what is constructed, coded, conventional… as against what human beings have in common as natural material animals” (p. 1).
Impact: Warns literary theorists against reducing all analysis to cultural codes, advocating instead for materialist grounding.

🟣 Contribution to Historicism Debates
He critiques both radical and conservative uses of historicism, disrupting the idea that historical contextualization is always politically progressive:

“Much historicism in Europe has been firmly in possession of political conservatism” (p. 2).
Impact: Complicates the assumption within literary theory that historicizing texts naturally produces critical or emancipatory readings.

🟡 Engagement with Ideology Critique
Refines the role of ideology in literary and cultural texts—not all ideologies operate by naturalizing the present:

“One can be a doughty defender of capitalism or Stalinism without suffering from the delusion that things were always like that” (p. 2).
Impact: Challenges literary critics to look beyond simplistic views of ideology as merely “false consciousness.”

🟠 Revision of Enlightenment Narratives
He offers a dialectical take on Enlightenment—neither wholly dismissed nor blindly embraced—urging theorists to retain its emancipatory goals:

“The doctrine which has traditionally tried to redeem the positive kernel of Enlightenment… is known as socialism” (p. 6).
Impact: Encourages reevaluation of Enlightenment values within postmodern literary theory rather than total rejection.

🟤 Critique of Liberal Humanism in Literary Studies
Questions the viability of liberal humanism as a mediating force in literary meaning, particularly in an era when culture itself is commodified:

“It is clearly much harder to sustain [liberal humanism] once culture… becomes part of the very terms in which political interests articulate themselves” (p. 4).
Impact: Pushes literary theorists to move beyond humanist ideals and confront ideological embeddedness of culture.

Global Contextualization of Literary Theory
By discussing China and postmodernism, Eagleton highlights the limitations of exporting Western literary theory uncritically:

“Western postmodern theory has arrived along with the latest shipment of Coca-Cola” (p. 6).
Impact: Sparks reflection on cultural imperialism in the global spread of Western literary and cultural theories.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton
Literary WorkCritique through Eagleton’s Lens
Don DeLillo – White NoiseReflects postmodernism’s obsession with surface, consumerism, and media simulation. Eagleton would critique it as a cultural product that critiques the system while also mimicking it: “Culture becomes part of the very terms in which political interests articulate themselves” (p. 4).
Jeanette Winterson – Written on the BodyEmbodies the postmodern celebration of fluid identity and indeterminate meaning. Eagleton would question the political efficacy of such plurality: “Some forms of plurality are radical, whereas others are as native to the free market as violence is to the United States” (p. 2).
Bret Easton Ellis – American PsychoIllustrates the collapse of moral and aesthetic values in late capitalism. Eagleton would view its stylized violence and commodified bodies as a symptom of culture under the sway of commodity logic: “The art… turns out to be just another modality of [exchange-value]” (p. 3).
Arundhati Roy – The God of Small ThingsWhile addressing postcolonial and cultural identities, Eagleton might caution against reading cultural difference as inherently subversive, warning: “Postmodernism… is now actively contributing to the remorseless cultural homogenization of the globe” (p. 6).
Criticism Against “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton

🔴 ⚖️ Over-Reliance on Marxist Framework
Critics argue that Eagleton overemphasizes economic determinism, filtering all cultural critique through a Marxist lens. This can downplay other axes of identity like race, gender, and sexuality, which postmodernism often foregrounds in nuanced ways.

🟢 🌐 Dismissive of Cultural Difference
Eagleton critiques culturalism and plurality as often serving capitalism, but this risks undermining legitimate struggles for identity, visibility, and representation. His suspicion of difference may seem to dismiss minority or postcolonial voices seeking recognition.

🔵 🔁 Binary Framing of Radical vs. Conservative
By arguing that postmodernism is both radical and conservative, some readers feel Eagleton sets up a reductive binary that glosses over the productive tensions and ambivalences within postmodern thought itself.

🟣 📚 Lack of Engagement with Postmodern Literary Texts
The essay offers a sweeping philosophical critique but rarely engages directly with specific literary works or genres associated with postmodernism (e.g., metafiction, magical realism, cyberpunk), which can make the argument feel too abstract or generalized.

🟡 🗺️ Eurocentric Perspective
Even while critiquing Western theory’s imposition on places like China, Eagleton’s tone and arguments still emerge from a European intellectual tradition, and he fails to fully engage non-Western theoretical perspectives on postmodernity and culture.

🟠 🧩 Reduction of Postmodernism to Capitalist Logic
By linking postmodernism too closely with consumer capitalism, Eagleton arguably ignores its subversive aesthetic contributions, such as narrative innovation, language play, and anti-foundational critique, which have expanded literary possibilities.

💭 Idealization of Enlightenment/Socialism
Eagleton’s call to salvage the “positive kernel” of Enlightenment and socialism may come across as nostalgic or idealized, especially to readers skeptical of both traditions’ imperialistic or exclusionary histories.

🟤 📉 Limited Impact on Literary Formalism
Although Eagleton critiques liberal humanism and culturalism, some critics note that he doesn’t offer a concrete framework for analyzing literary form, leaving theorists without a clear method for textual interpretation.

Representative Quotations from “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
1. “Postmodernism is both radical and conservative together… miming the logic of the capitalist marketplace itself.”Captures the central paradox of postmodernism: it critiques dominant ideologies while reproducing their economic logic.
2. “Culturalism inflates the importance of what is constructed… as against what human beings have in common as natural material animals.”Eagleton critiques culturalism for ignoring shared material and biological conditions in favor of endless relativism.
3. “There is nothing automatically radical about either margins or minorities.”Challenges the assumption in postmodern theory that marginality is inherently subversive; calls for historical and political specificity.
4. “The work of art… turns out to be just another modality of [exchange-value].”A Marxist view of how art has been commodified under capitalism, losing its critical distance.
5. “Today’s Western cultural left… have demonized all appeals to the natural as insidiously naturalizing.”Eagleton criticizes the cultural left for forgetting that Enlightenment appeals to nature were once radical and universalizing.
6. “Historicizing is by no means inherently radical either.”He challenges historicism as a default progressive method, arguing that conservatives also use historical narratives.
7. “Culture becomes part of the very terms in which political interests articulate themselves.”Culture is no longer a neutral or alternative space but deeply entangled in power and ideology.
8. “Western postmodern theory has arrived along with the latest shipment of Coca-Cola.”A biting comment on how postmodern thought often accompanies cultural imperialism and global capitalism.
9. “The more market forces level all distinct value and identity… the more their ideological superstructures will need to insist… upon absolute values.”Eagleton describes how capitalism paradoxically promotes relativism while demanding ideological rigidity.
10. “All one can perhaps point out is… the important issues are most certainly not in the first place ‘cultural.'”He concludes by emphasizing that political and economic struggles—not culture—should remain the central concern.
Suggested Readings: “The Contradictions of Postmodernism” by Terry Eagleton
  1. Eagleton, Terry. “The Contradictions of Postmodernism.” New Literary History, vol. 28, no. 1, 1997, pp. 1–6. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057396. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
  2. Hutcheon, Linda. “From A Poetics of Postmodernism (1988).” Postmodernism and the Contemporary Novel: A Reader, edited by Bran Nicol, Edinburgh University Press, 2002, pp. 301–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvxcrmf5.28. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
  3. Griffith, Robert. “The Cultural Turn in Cold War Studies.” Reviews in American History, vol. 29, no. 1, 2001, pp. 150–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30031041. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.

“The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis: Summary and Critique

“The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis first appeared in the Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), in a special issue titled Cultural Studies and New Historicism (pp. 14–23).

"The New Historicism and Marxism" by Tom Lewis: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis

“The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis first appeared in the Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), in a special issue titled Cultural Studies and New Historicism (pp. 14–23). In this critical essay, Lewis responds to Catherine Gallagher’s influential piece “Marxism and the New Historicism,” offering a powerful Marxist critique of New Historicism’s ideological tendencies and political shortcomings. Central to Lewis’s argument is the contention that New Historicism, rather than representing a genuine advance in politically engaged criticism, reflects a retreat into ironic detachment, academic formalism, and middle-class quietism. He contrasts the revolutionary potential of classical Marxism—which prioritizes working-class agency and structural transformation—with New Historicism’s reluctance to commit to political praxis or revolutionary aims. Lewis challenges the idea that cultural critique alone, devoid of organized political engagement, can meaningfully confront capitalist ideology. He argues that New Historicism has inherited the failures of the New Left, particularly its fragmentation, identity-based politics, and detachment from class struggle. Importantly, the essay underscores the necessity of party organization, historical materialism, and solidarity across oppressed groups as foundational to any emancipatory literary practice. Lewis’s contribution is significant for reasserting the need to link literary theory with real-world social transformation, reaffirming Marxist criticism’s relevance against the backdrop of depoliticized academic trends.

Summary of “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis

🔴 Critique of New Historicism’s Class Position

  • 🧩 New Historicism reflects middle-class intellectual detachment: Lewis argues it emerged from the “new middle classes” and expresses a “modernist stance of ironic detachment” after the failures of the 1968 radical wave (p. 14).
  • 🕳️ Politically “abstract and paralyzing”: Though nuanced, New Historicism’s politics are seen as ultimately hollow and non-transformative (p. 14).
  • 📉 It fails to offer a path to real social change, remaining within the confines of academia.

🟢 Gallagher’s Defense of New Historicism Challenged

  • 📖 Catherine Gallagher’s essay “Marxism and the New Historicism” is the focal point of Lewis’s critique. She claims New Historicism continues the legacy of 1960s radicalism, particularly the New Left (p. 14).
  • 🚫 Lewis disagrees, arguing that Gallagher “preserves and continues” New Left tendencies while overlooking their failures (p. 14–15).
  • 📚 He sees her narrative as a misrepresentation that evades the structural decline of radical activism into academic theory.

🟡 New Left: From Revolution to Radical Chic

  • 🎯 Initial successes: The New Left opposed the Vietnam War and supported civil rights and anti-imperialist struggles (p. 15).
  • 🏫 Co-opted by academia: Lewis criticizes the transition of radicals into academic roles, noting that they “quickly went from radical to radical chic” (p. 15).
  • 🌀 Obsession with theory: The shift from organizing to writing about “Althusser-Lacan-Barthes-Derrida-Foucault” became symptomatic of this detachment (p. 15).

🔵 Feminism and the Limits of Separatism

  • 👭 Women’s radical movements were crucial, but fragmented by internal contradictions and identity politics.
  • 🔍 Sexism within radical groups: Women faced “virulent sexism and bureaucratic elitism” in groups like SDS (p. 15).
  • 🚪 Separatist responses: Groups like Redstockings and New York Radical Feminists emerged, but often led to exclusion and division (p. 15–16).
  • 💔 Fragmentation over unity: Debates over lesbianism, men’s involvement, and personal lifestyles led to the movement’s splintering: “Real political differences manifested themselves in supposedly personal disagreements” (p. 17).
  • 🔕 Loss of democratic structure: Meetings degenerated into confusion and cliquism, exemplified by Bread and Roses’ Meredith Tax: “The meetings were a total turn-off” (Echols 1989, quoted on p. 17).

🟣 Critique of Identity Politics and “Decentered” Solidarity

  • 🧱 Gallagher celebrates the “logic of decentered distribution,” where each group speaks for itself against a system of oppression (p. 17).
  • ❗ Lewis argues this leads to political dead ends: “Every oppression presumed that its particular oppression was causally primary” (p. 17).
  • 🚧 He warns that identity politics, as practiced, became an “anti-politics of identity” leading to fragmentation and “apolitical introspection” (Kauffman 1990: 68).

🟠 Cultural Critique Without Class Is Empty

  • 🎭 Gallagher favors New Historicism’s view that “culture achieves total control through its very fracturing” (p. 19).
  • 🚫 Quietism over resistance: This “seems in itself quietistic,” leading to the belief that resistance is futile (p. 19).
  • 📚 Lewis critiques this position as surrendering the possibility of revolutionary literature in favor of academic relativism.

🟤 New Historicism vs. Left Formalism

  • 📐 Gallagher distances herself from Althusserian formalism but retains some of its apolitical methods: she critiques the idea that “form itself were revelatory” (p. 18).
  • 🧠 Lewis sees New Historicists as combining “a politics of voluntarism with a politics of textualism,” avoiding structural material analysis (p. 18).
  • 🎭 Their emphasis on ironic consciousness promotes passivity, not political change.

Political Cowardice: No Space for Revolution

  • 🛑 Gallagher claims critics can’t become political subjects without “an experience of decentered helplessness” (p. 21).
  • 📣 Lewis denounces this as academic defeatism. Revolutionary movements have always emerged from those deemed “decentered” by the system.
  • 💥 He asserts that refusing to “argue confidently for revolutionary positions” leads to complicity with the status quo (p. 20–21).

🔶 Rebuilding Class-Based Criticism

  • 🏗️ Lewis calls for returning to socialist, class-oriented criticism—not postmodern detachment.
  • Key tasks include:
    • Challenging Stalinism, Maoism, and Eurocommunism
    • Reaffirming the agency of the working class
    • Confronting movementism’s limitations
    • Re-engaging with Marxist strategies for change (p. 21–22)
  • 🧭 A political alternative to liberal reform must be forged through critical, organized activism—not just “signifying practice.”

Final Warning: Intellectual Elitism and Technocratic Drift

  • ⚖️ Lewis warns that post-1968 intellectuals increasingly fantasize about “hegemonic leadership roles” in a future society based on “technocratic expertise” (p. 22).
  • 📉 This shift reflects the “abandonment of real politics” in favor of academic careerism and top-down change.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis
Term / ConceptExplanationUsage in the Article with In-text Citation
New HistoricismA literary theory focused on cultural context, discourse, and power.Lewis critiques it as a mode “best explained in the context of the ‘new middle classes'” that results in “abstract and paralyzing” politics (Lewis, 1991, p. 14).
MarxismA theory of class struggle and historical materialism.Upheld by Lewis as necessary for a politically grounded criticism that maintains revolutionary potential (p. 20).
PostmodernismA skeptical, anti-foundational intellectual mode.Lewis argues New Historicism is actually modernist in disguise, masking elite detachment as postmodernism (p. 18).
Identity PoliticsPolitical mobilization based on personal or group identity.Called a “blind alley” that fragments the left: “Each and every oppression presumed that its particular oppression was causally primary” (p. 17).
Class StruggleThe central conflict between social classes under capitalism.Gallagher denies its primacy, but Lewis states that New Historicists “know” but deny class struggle because they “love capitalism more than they hate it” (p. 20).
VoluntarismEmphasis on individual willpower in theory or action.Lewis critiques both Althusserianism and New Historicism for combining “a politics of voluntarism with a politics of textualism” (p. 18).
TextualismA critical approach centered on close textual analysis at the expense of context.Criticized as the literary equivalent of economism in theory, detaching literature from real political struggle (p. 18).
Left FormalismMarxist-influenced literary formalism, especially Althusserian.Gallagher critiques it for assuming the subversiveness of form; Lewis calls it “unregenerate” and disconnected from historical agency (p. 18–19).
Cultural MaterialismA cultural theory emphasizing the material conditions behind texts.While not named directly, Lewis’s Marxist position contrasts New Historicism’s refusal to ground cultural critique in class and material forces (p. 20).
Signifying PracticeA theoretical belief that discourse alone enacts change.Satirized by Lewis: radicals believed “after the intellectuals had published enough essays… the masses would rise upon cue and seize the television stations!” (p. 15).
SubstitutionalismReplacing class struggle with another identity as the central axis of critique.Lewis criticizes New Left and feminist groups that assumed “liberating women has priority above every other idea” (p. 17).
Decentered SubjectThe idea that individuals are fragmented products of discourse and social forces.Gallagher sees this positively, but Lewis argues it promotes “decentered helplessness” and denies agency (p. 21).
Revolutionary AgencyThe capacity of oppressed groups to change their conditions.Lewis insists on the working class as the agent of change, accusing New Historicists of political cowardice for refusing to defend revolutionary positions (p. 20–22).
Western MarxismThinkers like Lukács and the Frankfurt School.Gallagher appeals to their legacy, but Lewis claims she misrepresents them and trivializes their politics (p. 19).
Technocratic ElitismRule or dominance by experts/intellectuals in place of democratic masses.Critiqued in the article’s conclusion as a fantasy held by post-1968 radicals: “the generation that lost its revolutionary illusions… now secretly fantasizes a hegemonic leadership role” (p. 22).
Contribution of “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis to Literary Theory/Theories

🔴 📌 Reassertion of Historical Materialism in Literary Criticism (Marxist Theory)

  • Lewis defends Marxist theory as essential for restoring the link between literature and material conditions.
  • He insists on class struggle as the “crucial contradiction” overlooked by New Historicism, which “knows but denies the primacy of class” (p. 20).
  • 📣 Contribution: Re-centers class and political economy as non-negotiable foundations of literary theory, against post-structural detachment.

🟢 📌 Critique of Postmodernism and Cultural Relativism

  • While New Historicism claims postmodern lineage, Lewis calls it a disguised form of modernist elitism: “Ultimately modernist in a ‘postmodernist’ guise” (p. 18).
  • 📣 Contribution: Challenges the theoretical legitimacy of postmodernism within literary criticism by exposing its depoliticized, academic core.

🟡 📌 Intervention in the Identity Politics Debate (Cultural Theory / Feminist Theory)

  • He critiques the fragmentation caused by identity politics, stating it led to “a cycle of fragmentation and diffusion of political energies” (Kauffman 1990:68, cited p. 17).
  • 📣 Contribution: Warns that substituting identity for class undermines collective resistance, calling for theories that integrate both identity and class struggle.

🔵 📌 Deconstruction of New Historicism’s Political Claims (New Historicism)

  • While acknowledging its influence, Lewis argues that New Historicism’s “ironic detachment” and emphasis on textual multiplicity result in political paralysis (p. 14, 19).
  • 📣 Contribution: Exposes New Historicism’s limitations as a literary-political framework, pushing scholars to rethink its revolutionary pretensions.

🟣 📌 Recovery of Revolutionary Criticism (Critical Theory / Praxis-Based Theories)

  • Advocates for literary criticism that makes explicit political commitments: “What’s wrong with a political criticism that furthers the struggle for socialism, women’s liberation…?” (p. 20).
  • 📣 Contribution: Reorients literary theory toward activism and movement-building, bridging critique and praxis.

🟠 📌 Re-evaluation of Althusserian Formalism (Structuralist Marxism)

  • Lewis critiques the “left formalism” of Althusser and Macherey for assuming art’s subversiveness without political grounding (p. 18–19).
  • 📣 Contribution: Suggests that even Marxist formalism must be accountable to historical and revolutionary practice, not just structural reading.

🟤 📌 Challenge to the Academic Co-option of Radicalism (Cultural Studies)

  • Notes that many radicals “went from radical to radical chic” as academia replaced activism (p. 15).
  • 📣 Contribution: Calls on Cultural Studies to re-engage with its political roots, including trade unionism and working-class alliances.

📌 Redefining the Role of the Intellectual (Public Intellectualism / Theory & Politics)

  • Warns against technocratic elitism: “The generation that lost its revolutionary illusions… fantasizes a hegemonic leadership role in the future society” (p. 22).
  • 📣 Contribution: Urges literary theorists to act as participants, not managers of social transformation.

🔶 📌 Restatement of Collective Agency in Theory (Radical Humanism / Political Literary Theory)

  • Rejects the idea that “decentered subjects” cannot change the world, noting they have—through revolutions, movements, and uprisings (p. 21).
  • 📣 Contribution: Defends a critical humanism rooted in collective agency, challenging the fatalism of structuralist/poststructuralist models.

Examples of Critiques Through “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis
Literary WorkNew Historicist Approach (Critiqued by Lewis)Marxist Re-interpretation (As Advocated by Lewis)
William Shakespeare’s The TempestFocuses on colonial discourse and power through language and performance; emphasizes ambiguity and irony.Lewis would emphasize Prospero’s domination as reflecting emergent capitalist power and colonial exploitation, calling for revolutionary critique.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow WallpaperSeen as a fragmented subject negotiating medical discourse and gender roles in 19th-century America.A Marxist lens would highlight patriarchal control tied to bourgeois domestic ideology, showing how women’s labor is confined and exploited.
George Orwell’s 1984Interpreted as a post-structural meditation on surveillance, signification, and discourse.Lewis’s framework would stress state repression as a product of totalitarian capitalism, urging critique of class surveillance and alienation.
Toni Morrison’s BelovedExplored through memory, trauma, and discursive constructions of identity in racial history.A Marxist critique would analyze how slavery functioned as economic exploitation, tying racial oppression to capitalist accumulation and labor value.

🔍 Methodological Note:

These reinterpretations reflect Tom Lewis’s call to:

  • Reject the ironic detachment of New Historicism.
  • Restore class struggle, material conditions, and revolutionary potential to literary analysis.
  • Treat literature not just as “signifying practice” but as part of historical and ideological struggle (Lewis, 1991, pp. 18–22).
Criticism Against “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis

🔴 🧱 Overreliance on Class as the Primary Analytical Lens

  • Critics might argue that Lewis’s unwavering focus on class struggle ignores the intersectionality of race, gender, sexuality, and identity.
  • His Marxist insistence on economic determinism may overlook the complexities of cultural production and subjective experience in literature.

🟡 🔍 Reductionism Toward New Historicism

  • Lewis presents a monolithic and often dismissive portrayal of New Historicist critics.
  • He underplays the nuanced, historicized readings of power and ideology offered by New Historicists like Stephen Greenblatt and Catherine Gallagher.

🟢 🎭 Mischaracterization of Postmodernism and Irony

  • His critique that New Historicism promotes “ironic detachment” (p. 14) could be seen as oversimplified.
  • Postmodern irony, in many readings, serves as resistance, not apathy—contrary to Lewis’s claim that it “paralyzes” political engagement.

🔵 📚 Dismissal of Identity Politics as Fragmentation

  • Critics might reject Lewis’s claim that identity politics leads to “a cycle of fragmentation” (p. 17).
  • This view undermines the political realities of marginalized groups, suggesting that their struggles are distractions from the “main” class struggle.

🟣 📏 Dogmatic Marxist Framework

  • Lewis’s tone at times is rigidly ideological, favoring Leninist class politics as the only legitimate form of literary-political analysis.
  • This could alienate scholars who seek more pluralistic or hybrid theoretical approaches (e.g., combining feminism, postcolonial theory, or queer theory with Marxism).

🟤 📉 Neglect of Institutional Realities in Academia

  • Lewis critiques New Left academics for entering the academy, yet offers no practical alternative for how intellectuals should function in institutional spaces.
  • His dismissal of academic work as “radical chic” (p. 15) may seem cynical and dismissive of genuine pedagogical labor.

🎯 Lack of Engagement with Evolving New Historicism

  • By 1991, New Historicism had already diversified. Lewis does not sufficiently engage newer or more politically committed variations of the approach.
  • His critique is largely based on a selective reading of Gallagher, without fully addressing scholars like Jameson or Greenblatt’s later work.

🔶 🤝 Missed Opportunity for Theoretical Synthesis

  • Lewis insists on a clear division between Marxism and New Historicism, but misses chances for synthesis, such as integrating discourse analysis into historical materialism.
  • Critics might argue that bridging rather than polarizing these traditions could be more productive.
Representative Quotations from “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
1. “New historicism is best explained in the context of the ‘new middle classes’ and the generalization of a modernist stance of ironic detachment after 1968.” (p. 14)Lewis critiques New Historicism as a product of a post-1968 intellectual class that retreated into irony and cultural abstraction rather than revolutionary politics.
2. “They quickly went from radical to radical chic.” (p. 15)Describes how 1960s radicals became absorbed into academia, losing their political edge and becoming part of a depoliticized professional class.
3. “This contraction [of New Left practice] was often justified by appeal to what may qualify as the New Left’s most colossal failure of analysis: namely, its romanticizing of the Chinese cultural revolution.” (p. 15)Lewis critiques how leftist intellectuals prioritized theory (especially structuralist and post-structuralist theory) over grounded political activism.
4. “The feminist movement was therefore diffused and splintered: because of its legacy from the movements; because of its avoidance of political argument; and because of its orientation on personal lifestyles.” (p. 16)He criticizes the feminist movement’s internal divisions and its drift toward lifestyle politics and separatism instead of collective class struggle.
5. “Gallagher’s argument thus ‘knows’ but denies the primacy of class struggle.” (p. 20)Lewis accuses New Historicism, via Gallagher, of implicitly acknowledging but refusing to embrace class-based politics and revolution.
6. “Left-wing critics would concede that new historicists often read the right texts and ask the right questions, but they complain that such readings yield the wrong answers.” (p. 19)Highlights how New Historicists raise significant issues but ultimately defuse them by avoiding commitment to radical outcomes.
7. “New historicists sign on as collaborationists.” (p. 19)A stark condemnation—Lewis argues that New Historicism, by downplaying literature’s subversive potential, aligns with the dominant culture rather than challenging it.
8. “What’s wrong with an explicitly political criticism that says… ‘I have nonetheless decided to persuade you… in some small way [to] further the struggle for socialism, women’s liberation, an end to racism, etc.’?” (p. 20)Lewis advocates for political criticism that openly pursues radical social goals, rejecting neutrality or detachment.
9. “The effort of this criticism has been to trace the creation of modern subjectivity in the necessary failures of the effort to produce a stable subject.” (p. 21)He critiques New Historicism’s notion of the fractured subject, implying it fosters political passivity by denying agency and coherent identity.
10. “The generation that lost its revolutionary illusions… now secretly fantasizes a hegemonic leadership role in the future society on the basis of their knowledge and technocratic expertise.” (p. 22)He accuses post-1968 intellectuals of abandoning revolution in favor of elitist visions of top-down transformation led by academics and professionals.
Suggested Readings: “The New Historicism and Marxism” by Tom Lewis
  1. Lewis, Tom. “The New Historicism and Marxism.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 24.1 (1991): 14-23.
  2. Lewis, Tom. “The New Historicism and Marxism.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 24, no. 1, 1991, pp. 14–23. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1315022. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.
  3. O’DAIR, SHARON. “Marx Manqué: A Brief History of Marxist Shakespeare Criticism in North America, ca. 1980–ca. 2000.” Shakespeare in the World of Communism and Socialism, edited by Irena R. Makaryk and Joseph G. Price, University of Toronto Press, 2006, pp. 349–74. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt5hjxh9.28. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.