Theory Article Summaries Archives - Page 5 of 67

“Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske: Summary and Critique

“Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach to Watching Television” by John Fiske first appeared in 1992 in the journal Poetics, Volume 21, published by North-Holland (pp. 345–359).

Introduction: “Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske

“Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach to Watching Television” by John Fiske first appeared in 1992 in the journal Poetics, Volume 21, published by North-Holland (pp. 345–359). Fiske advances a cultural studies perspective on television audiences, emphasizing the dynamic and participatory role of viewers in the production of meaning. Using the example of the controversial sitcom Married… with Children and its reception by a group of university students, Fiske explores how audiences form “social formations” around shared practices of watching television, thereby transforming media consumption into a site of cultural production. He contrasts this ethnographic, systemic approach with the more positivist methods of audience measurement and psychological effects studies. Central to his thesis is the concept of “audiencing”—viewing not as passive reception but as an active, interpretive, and often oppositional cultural act. The importance of this article lies in its challenge to traditional notions of the audience, its reconceptualization of cultural engagement, and its broader implications for media theory, particularly in its alignment with discourse analysis and structuralist theories of culture (Fiske, 1992).

Summary of “Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske

Audiencing as Cultural Practice: Fiske introduces “audiencing” as an active, culturally embedded process by which viewers engage with television content. Audiences “produce, through lived experience, their own sense of their social identities and social relations” (Fiske, 1992, p. 354).
Particularity vs. Generality: He contrasts cultural studies’ emphasis on the particularity of audience experiences with positivist approaches that seek generality: “one of the defining differences between the two approaches is the particularity of the cultural studies’ audience against the generality of the positivist one” (p. 346).

Case Study – Married… with Children: Fiske uses the show Married… with Children as a case study to examine how a teenage audience formed a social formation around watching the show. They used its carnivalesque satire to resist dominant “family values” (pp. 347–350).
The Carnivalesque and Resistance: The show’s grotesque representations of the Bundy family inverted normative family ideals. Fiske writes that the show “mocked and inverted” the “normative family in which gender and age differences are contained within a consensual harmony” (p. 348).
Teenage Viewership as Social Formation: The audience is conceptualized as a “social formation,” not merely a demographic. These formations are “formed and dissolved more fluidly according to contextual conditions” and “identified by what its members do rather than by what they are” (p. 351).

Cultural Conflict and the Power-Bloc: The controversy surrounding the show (notably Terry Rakolta’s campaign) illustrates tensions between conservative cultural forces and youth culture. Fiske notes, “the creation of gaps is enough to provoke the power-bloc to rush to repair its system” (p. 352).
Struggles over Audience Definition: Competing institutions (e.g., Fox, conservative activists) define the audience differently: “Fox and Rakolta struggle over the construction of ‘the teenager’” (p. 354). This reflects broader ideological contests over identity and values.
Systemic vs. Positivist Models: Fiske critiques positivist methods for being “descriptive,” lacking a model of change or audience agency. In contrast, systemic (cultural studies) models “generate the practices by which they are used and are, in their turn, modified by those practices” (p. 357).

The Analyst’s Role: Cultural analysis does not claim objectivity. Fiske asserts that “extraction and return are productive not objective practices” and emphasizes the analyst’s modest role in contributing to understanding rather than revealing definitive truth (p. 355).
Meaning as Social Circulation: Ultimately, Fiske sees culture as a “maelstrom” of circulating meanings. “Audiencing is part of this flow and eddy… sometimes part of the mainstream flow, sometimes part of an upstream eddy” (p. 359).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske

Concept	Explanation	Usage in the Article	Page
Audiencing	Audience engagement as an active cultural process through which social meanings and identities are produced.	“Watching the program involved a series of interactive comments… The show enabled them to engage…”	354
Carnivalesque	Subversive and grotesque humor that inverts norms of gender, class, and family.	“The carnivalesque offense of the show runs along a continuum in which offensive bodies extend…”	348
Social Formation	A group formed by shared cultural practices rather than fixed demographic categories.	“This particular audience… is best understood not as a social category… but as a social formation.”	351
Power-Bloc	Strategic alliance of dominant social interests working to maintain ideological and cultural norms.	“The creation of gaps is enough to provoke the power-bloc to rush to repair its system.”	353
Cultural Studies vs. Positivism	Contrasts interpretive, audience-centered methods with positivist, empirical audience measurement.	“The particularity of the cultural studies’ audience against the generality of the positivist one.”	346
Systemic vs. Representative	Cultural systems are dynamic and generative; positivist models are descriptive and fixed.	“Systemic theories of structure go further… they are modified by those practices.”	357
Excorporation	Subordinate groups appropriating and reinterpreting elements of dominant culture for their own ends.	“Scan the products of the culture industries looking for elements which they can excorporate…”	354
Cultural Analyst	One who interprets cultural practices to theorize the circulation of meanings.	“The cultural analyst has to find ‘sites of analysis’ where this circulation becomes accessible…”	353
Social Circulation of Meanings	Culture as the ongoing struggle over meanings within a social structure.	“Culture is the social circulation of meanings, pleasures, and values…”	353
The Active Audience	Viewers are seen as participants who negotiate meanings rather than passively absorb them.	“Audience activity is an engagement in social relations across social inequality…”	358

Contribution of “Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Reframing the Concept of the Audience

Fiske introduces “audiencing” as an active, interpretive practice rather than passive reception, significantly reshaping media and literary reception theory.

“Watching the program involved a series of interactive comments… The show enabled them to engage in and reconfigure the age politics of their relations” (Fiske, 1992, p. 350).

This undermines traditional notions of the audience as a homogeneous mass or as solely an object of empirical measurement.

2. Emphasizing Lived Experience in Textual Interpretation

Fiske aligns with cultural materialist and reader-response approaches by focusing on how meaning is produced in the interaction between text and viewer’s lived context.

“Audience activity is an engagement in social relations across social inequality” (p. 358).

His work supports the idea that meaning is not embedded in the text but arises from use.

3. Cultural Studies as a Methodological Alternative

Fiske promotes cultural studies as a systemic and theoretical model over positivist, data-driven research, directly influencing literary theory’s methods of interpretation.

“Systemic theories of structure go further than do positivist ones… they are modified by those practices” (p. 357).

Encourages literary critics to view cultural products as sites of ideological struggle rather than isolated texts.

4. Integration of Discourse Theory and Structuration

Drawing from Foucault and discourse theory, Fiske treats meaning as discursively constructed within cultural systems—parallel to poststructuralist literary theory.

“The system is produced in part… by its practices, as the practices are produced… by the system” (p. 357).

Literary theory benefits from this model as it parallels how texts produce and are produced by cultural discourse.

5. Subordination, Resistance, and Excorporation

Contributing to theories of resistance in literary studies (e.g., Marxist and postcolonial theory), Fiske’s concept of excorporation shows how audiences appropriate mass culture.

“Scan the products of the culture industries looking for elements which they can excorporate…” (p. 354).

This empowers subaltern voices in interpretive contexts and critiques cultural hegemony.

6. Text-Audience Reciprocity and Systematicity

Fiske advances a theory where the audience is not the result of the text but vice versa—challenging structuralist one-way models.

“The text is an effect of this audience… and the skill of its producers lies in their ability to respond” (p. 358).

This reciprocity opens new pathways for literary theory to reconsider the origin of textual meaning.

Examples of Critiques Through “Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske

Literary Work	Audiencing-Based Critique	Relation to Fiske’s Concepts
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen	Readers from different gender or class positions might interpret the irony and marriage norms as empowering or limiting.	Social Formation; Gender/Class-Based Audiencing; Excorporation of Marriage Ideals
	Teenage or feminist audiences may mock the pursuit of marriage as outdated or restrictive.
Beloved by Toni Morrison	African American or postcolonial readers may ‘audience’ the novel as resistance to historical erasure.	Cultural Resistance; Historical Reinterpretation; Social Circulation of Meaning
	Emphasizes collective trauma and memory over individual suffering, shaped by cultural and historical identity.
1984 by George Orwell	Activist or younger readers may identify with surveillance themes, using the novel to critique modern digital politics.	Systemic Power; Audience as Interpretive Agent; Text as Effect of Reader Context
	The novel becomes a site for articulating fears of control and political manipulation rooted in current realities.
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Outsider or youth audiences may read Gatsby’s wealth as critique, not aspiration.	Carnivalesque Inversion; Class Identity; Textual Meaning as Viewer-Constructed
	The glitz of the Jazz Age is reinterpreted as a symbol of exclusion and superficiality.

Criticism Against “Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske

Lack of Empirical Rigor
Critics argue that Fiske’s rejection of positivist methodologies leads to a lack of verifiable or generalizable data. His examples, such as the student viewing group, are anecdotal and not representative.
Overemphasis on Audience Agency
Some scholars claim that Fiske overstates the power of audiences to reinterpret or resist media texts, downplaying the influence of dominant ideologies embedded in media systems.
Vagueness of ‘Social Formation’
The concept of social formations is seen by some as too fluid or undefined, lacking methodological clarity for consistent application across studies.

Limited Scope of ‘Audiencing’
Critics point out that Fiske’s focus on subversive or resistant readings (like youth mocking family norms) may overlook more complicit or conservative audience practices.
Dismissal of Media Effects Research
Fiske’s dismissal of effects-based models is seen by some as too sweeping, ignoring valuable findings about how media influences behavior and attitudes.
Elitism of the Cultural Analyst
Some scholars note a tension in Fiske’s work: while promoting bottom-up meaning-making, the analyst still plays a top-down role in selecting and interpreting cultural practices.

Underdeveloped Account of Power
While Fiske discusses power blocs, some critiques argue that he doesn’t offer a sufficiently nuanced theory of how power structures constrain or enable audience interpretation.

Representative Quotations from “Audiencing: A Cultural Studies Approach To Watching Television” By John Fiske with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Culture is the social circulation of meanings, pleasures, and values” (Fiske, 1992, p. 353).	Fiske conceptualizes culture not as static artifacts but as dynamic processes of shared meanings in society.
“Audiencing is part of this process” (Fiske, 1992, p. 345).	Watching television is not passive consumption but active participation in cultural meaning-making.
“The audience stops being a social category and becomes a process” (Fiske, 1992, p. 354).	Fiske rejects demographic-based definitions of audiences in favor of audience behavior and practices.
“The program enabled them to mock the differences between their parents now and themselves” (Fiske, 1992, p. 350).	Teen viewers use the show to challenge generational norms and express identity.
“This group of people who came together to ‘audience’ the show is best understood…as a social formation” (Fiske, 1992, p. 351).	The audience functions as a temporary community organized by shared cultural practices, not fixed social identities.
“The carnivalesque can do no more than open up spaces; it is upon what fills them that we should base our analysis” (Fiske, 1992, p. 352).	Fiske emphasizes potentiality over outcomes in subversive or transgressive media content.
“In calling the text an effect of the audience, I am attempting to score a point in a debate” (Fiske, 1992, p. 358).	Fiske reverses the traditional hierarchy, arguing that audiences shape media texts as much as they are shaped by them.
“The relationship between them is not one of cause and effect…but one of systematicity” (Fiske, 1992, p. 358).	He argues for a non-linear, reciprocal relationship between texts and audiences.
“The analyst’s experience of that mouthful is quite different from that of the young man who took the bite in the first place” (Fiske, 1992, p. 355).	Highlights the gap between academic interpretation and lived cultural experience.
“Systems and practices both structure each other and are structured by each other” (Fiske, 1992, p. 357).	Fiske draws from structuration theory to explain the mutual shaping of culture and social practices.

“Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg: Summary and Critique

“Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg first appeared in Cultural Studies on August 6, 2013, published by Routledge.

Introduction: “Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg

“Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg first appeared in Cultural Studies on August 6, 2013, published by Routledge. In this seminal essay, Grossberg offers a critical and pedagogical engagement with the theoretical complexities of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, exploring their relevance to and potential contributions within cultural studies. Rather than merely celebrating their influence, Grossberg challenges the assumption that Deleuze and Guattari have straightforwardly transformed cultural theory, instead urging for a nuanced, conjuncturally grounded appropriation of their work. He outlines three discursive vocabularies—assemblages, lines, and machines—that define the contours of their philosophical ontology, stressing the importance of maintaining the specificity and immanence of theory in relation to context. Grossberg also critiques reductive applications of Deleuzo–Guattarian concepts that fetishize molecular politics or abstract resistance, advocating for a more rigorous articulation between ontological thought and empirical complexity. The article is significant in literary and cultural theory for reframing how Deleuze and Guattari might be productively mobilized within a politically and analytically committed cultural studies project (Grossberg, 2013).

Summary of “Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg

Deleuze and Guattari’s Philosophy Resists Simplification and Demands Pedagogical Nuance

Deleuze and Guattari’s work is conceptually rich but complex, resisting tidy overviews. Grossberg acknowledges the challenge in teaching it due to their fluid vocabulary and intertextual structure: “You cannot say that the various appearances of concepts like assemblage or territorialization are simple repetitions” (p. 3). Their ontology is rooted in immanence, multiplicity, and a refusal of transcendence, privileging relations of exteriority over fixed identities (p. 2).

Three Discursive Frameworks: Assemblages, Lines, and Machines

Grossberg identifies three interwoven but distinct discourses in Deleuze and Guattari’s work:

Assemblages: Assemblages conceptualize collectivities as “multiplicities rather than as unity” (p. 4). Three forms—arborescent, radicle, and rhizomatic—represent hierarchical, deconstructed-yet-still-unified, and fully non-hierarchical organization respectively. The rhizome “has no centre, hierarchy or teleology” and is a map for creative experimentation (p. 5).

Lines: Fundamental to their ontology is becoming, expressed through lines of intensity and transformation. These include connective, disjunctive, and conjunctive lines, describing relations that respectively create, differentiate, and amplify (p. 6). Lines of flight express deterritorialization, resisting structure and signification (p. 8).
Machines: Machines mediate the actualization of the virtual. Unlike mechanistic devices, abstract machines, coding machines, and territorializing machines organize and produce realities without requiring human intention (p. 9). “Reality is produced… through a series of machines” (p. 9).

Risks of Misusing Deleuze and Guattari in Cultural Studies

Grossberg critiques the uncritical adoption of Deleuze–Guattarian ideas in cultural studies, warning that many interpretations turn concepts into totalizing frameworks. Diagnoses of “biopower,” “affect,” and “the society of control” often prefigure their conclusions, using theory to overshadow empirical analysis: “Empirical realities do make their appearance, but their promise is almost always guaranteed in advance” (p. 13).

Conflating Ontological and Political Discourses Undermines Analysis

Grossberg argues that collapsing distinctions between concepts like rhizome, virtual, and deterritorialization reduces Deleuze–Guattarian theory to an ethics of refusal or pure resistance. This “fetishizes particular kinds of resistance…isolating it from questions of adequacy and effectiveness” (p. 15). A refusal to engage with institutional structures can lead to politically impotent or nihilistic positions.

Cultural Studies Should Use Deleuze and Guattari as Tools, Not Templates

Instead of viewing their philosophy as cultural studies, Grossberg argues for their use as conceptual tools within the conjunctural method. “Ontology does not guarantee the truth or utility of its descriptions, and critical work is never simply a matter of offering ontological assertions” (p. 17). Cultural studies must “analyse the configurations of the actual and describe the processes…by which it…is being actualized” (p. 17).

Multiplicity and Immanence Are Vital, But Must Be Concretely Engaged

Grossberg highlights Deleuze and Guattari’s insistence on multiplicities, both in structure and in thought, as essential to escaping binary logics: “Wherever we think there are singularities or binaries, we need to think multiplicities” (p. 19). The political and analytical task is to map, not merely diagnose, complexity—working toward actionable transformation.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg

Concept	Description	Reference
Assemblage (Agencement)	A mode of organizing multiplicity that resists unity; includes types such as arborescent (tree), radicle, and rhizome.	p. 5–6
Rhizome	A non-hierarchical, acentered network of relations and connections; used as a metaphor for decentralized structures and thought.	p. 6
Deterritorialization	A process of undoing organization, escaping structure, and returning to the virtual; can be relative or absolute.	p. 8–9
Lines of Flight	Paths of escape from structured reality; associated with transformation, escape, and resistance.	p. 8
Becoming	Core ontological term emphasizing transformation and relationality over fixed identity.	p. 6
Immanence	The philosophical stance that everything exists on a single plane of reality, with no transcendence separating condition from conditioned.	p. 2, 7
Virtual and Actual	Virtual refers to potential relational capacities; actual refers to specific instantiations. Both coexist on the same plane of immanence.	p. 7–8
Abstract Machine	The diagrammatic force that organizes multiplicities and actualizes the virtual; constructs strata of expression and content.	p. 10
Stratification	The process through which expression and content are constructed; part of how the abstract machine produces the actual.	p. 10
Expression and Content	Dual components of a stratum: expression transforms, content is acted upon.	p. 10
Machinic Assemblages	A process of actualization that operates without reliance on human subjectivity; avoids anthropocentric constructionism.	p. 9
Conjuncture	A historically specific configuration of forces; central to cultural studies analysis.	p. 13
Multiplicity	A mode of thinking that resists binaries and unities, favoring complex, heterogeneous relations.	p. 3, 17
Politics of Theory	The notion that theoretical commitments have political consequences and must be tested against empirical realities.	p. 1, 13
Ontology of Multiplicity	Deleuze and Guattari’s commitment to non-Kantian, anti-transcendental, relational ontology.	p. 2–3
Territorialization	The process of fixing, structuring, and organizing; in opposition to deterritorialization.	p. 8
Coding and Decoding Machines	Mechanisms that organize difference (coding) and disrupt structure (decoding); part of how the real is constructed.	p. 10–11
Affect	Capacity to affect and be affected; central to understanding subjectivity and politics in Deleuze–Guattarian theory.	p. 6
Ethics of Immanence	A non-fascist life rooted in becoming, complexity, and situated critique; avoids universal prescriptions.	p. 15

Contribution of “Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Grossberg’s Contribution	Reference
Poststructuralism	Grossberg engages with Deleuze and Guattari’s rejection of fixed structures and identities, emphasizing fluidity and multiplicity in meaning-making, which aligns with poststructuralist critiques of stable signification.	p. 2–3
Deconstruction	By discussing concepts like deterritorialization and lines of flight, Grossberg highlights processes that deconstruct established meanings and structures, resonating with deconstructive approaches in literary analysis.	p. 8–9
Reader-Response Theory	The emphasis on immanence and the active role of assemblages in creating meaning suggests a participatory process akin to reader-response theory, where interpretation is co-constructed by the reader’s engagement with the text.	p. 6–7
Cultural Studies	Grossberg advocates for a contextual and situated approach to theory, emphasizing the importance of analyzing texts within their cultural and political conjunctures, which is foundational to cultural studies methodologies.	p. 1, 13
Postcolonial Theory	The discussion on deterritorialization and reterritorialization offers insights into the dynamics of cultural displacement and hybridity, central themes in postcolonial literary analysis.	p. 8–9
Feminist Theory	By challenging hierarchical and binary structures through the concept of multiplicity, Grossberg’s interpretation aligns with feminist critiques of patriarchal binaries and supports more inclusive and diverse understandings of identity and experience.	p. 3, 17
Psychoanalytic Criticism	The exploration of desire, affect, and becoming in Deleuze and Guattari’s work, as discussed by Grossberg, provides alternative frameworks to traditional psychoanalytic interpretations of subjectivity and unconscious processes in literature.	p. 6
Marxist Literary Criticism	Grossberg’s analysis of machines and machinic assemblages as producers of reality can be related to Marxist critiques of production and labor, offering a nuanced understanding of how economic structures influence cultural texts.	p. 9–10

Examples of Critiques Through “Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg

1. Beloved by Toni Morrison

Assemblage Theory (Rhizomatic Structure)
- The novel operates as a rhizome, weaving memory, trauma, and identity without linear chronology.
- Characters like Sethe exist at the intersection of multiple temporalities and subjectivities (Grossberg, p. 4–5).
Affect and Desire
- The unspeakable trauma of slavery is expressed through affective intensities rather than rational discourse (p. 6).
- Beloved (the character) emerges as a becoming–ghost, embodying both absence and presence.

2. Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf

Lines of Flight and Becoming
- Clarissa’s wandering through London represents a “line of flight” – a deterritorialization of bourgeois domestic identity (p. 7–8).
- Septimus’s mental state embodies the molecular and the affective, escaping Oedipal and rational structures.

Smooth and Striated Space
- The novel shifts between smooth experiential time (Bergsonian durée) and the striated order of societal expectations (p. 9).

3. Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie

Territorialization and Deterritorialization
- Saleem Sinai’s narrative maps the shifting territorial identities of postcolonial India (p. 8–9).
- The novel deterritorializes linear national history, producing an assemblage of fragmented cultural narratives.

Multiplicities and Virtuality
- Saleem’s telepathic connection to other “midnight’s children” exemplifies virtual relationality – a field of unrealized potential (p. 7).

4. The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot

Abstract Machines and Stratification
- The poem acts as a coding machine that stratifies language and culture through fragmentation and quotation (p. 9–10).
- The interplay of expression and content challenges the reader to reconstruct meaning across multiple strata.

Rhizomatic Poetics
- Rejects arborescent structure; the poem connects heterogeneous voices and traditions, forming a cultural rhizome (p. 5).

Criticism Against “Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg

Over-Complexity and Accessibility
- The dense theoretical language and layered discourses may alienate readers unfamiliar with Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy or cultural studies (Grossberg, p. 2–3).
- Pedagogical challenges are acknowledged, yet the article does little to simplify or translate core ideas for broader readership.
Ambiguity in Political Commitments
- Critics may argue that Grossberg resists clearly aligning with either Deleuze–Guattarian molecular politics or traditional Marxist frameworks, potentially leading to theoretical indecisiveness (p. 13–14).
Insufficient Engagement with Opposing Theories
- While Grossberg critiques “fetishized” Deleuzean readings, he does not robustly engage with counter-philosophies (e.g., Badiou, object-oriented ontology) except to mention them briefly (p. 20 n2).

Conflation Risks Despite Warnings
- Though he warns against conflating rhizome/virtual/deterritorialization (p. 16), his own writing at times risks such collapses due to rapid transitions between vocabularies.
Underdeveloped Empirical Application
- Despite advocating for conjunctural analysis and empirical engagement, Grossberg’s article stays largely at the level of philosophical abstraction without applying concepts to concrete cultural texts (p. 16–17).
Dependence on Deleuze–Guattari without Sufficient Critique
- While cautious, Grossberg’s tone remains reverential, and he may be criticized for not fully questioning the limits or contradictions within Deleuze and Guattari’s own texts.

Potential Marginalization of Cultural Studies Origins
- By integrating high-theory, some may argue he shifts cultural studies too far from its roots in popular culture analysis, social activism, and grounded empirical work.

Representative Quotations from “Cultural Studies And Deleuze–Guattari, Part 1” by Lawrence Grossberg with Explanation

No.	Quotation	Explanation
1	“Cultural studies approaches theory as a necessary but not sufficient ‘detour’.”	Theory is a useful but incomplete tool; cultural studies demands contextual, conjunctural analysis rather than abstract application.
2	“It is relatively easy to specify the major ontological commitments that ground their radical effort to rewrite philosophy…”	Deleuze and Guattari aim to rethink ontology by challenging traditional metaphysics with concepts like immanence and multiplicity.
3	“An assemblage is a way of re-conceptualizing a notion of collectivity… as multiplicity rather than as unity.”	Assemblage theory redefines social organization without hierarchical or fixed structures, embracing complexity and heterogeneity.
4	“Lines of deterritorialization or flight are not simply matters of opposition… They are that which flees, escapes, eludes…”	Political change is not always oppositional; it can take the form of escape or deviation from dominant structures.
5	“Reality is made… precisely by making connections among the singularities, the multiplicities, the assemblages…”	Emphasizes a relational ontology where reality is continuously produced through dynamic, interconnected processes.
6	“The rhizome has no centre, hierarchy or teleology, no plan or intention.”	Rhizomes represent non-hierarchical, decentralized models of thought and social formations.
7	“Machines fail, lines of flight are always taking off… failure itself is, indeed, productive.”	Failure and breakdown are seen not as ends, but as generative forces for transformation and new possibilities.
8	“Ontology does not guarantee the truth or utility of its descriptions…”	Ontological claims must be tested through empirical and conjunctural analysis; they are not inherently valid.
9	“The concept is a tool the utility of which has to be constantly constructed and contested…”	Concepts should be deployed strategically and examined for their practical value in specific contexts.
10	“They offer a set of tools… for analysing the world as an ongoing construction…”	Deleuze and Guattari provide theoretical tools that aid in understanding and engaging with the world’s constant reconfiguration.

“Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka: Summary and Critique

“Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka first appeared in 1995 in New German Critique, No. 65, within the special issue on Cultural History/Cultural Studies.

Introduction: “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka

“Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka first appeared in 1995 in New German Critique, No. 65, within the special issue on Cultural History/Cultural Studies. This influential essay redefines the framework for understanding memory by distinguishing between “communicative memory”—short-term, everyday oral recollection—and “cultural memory”—a long-term, objectivized, and institutionally anchored form of memory that sustains a group’s cultural identity across generations. Drawing on Maurice Halbwachs and Aby Warburg, the authors argue that cultural memory is not biologically inherited but socially constructed and maintained through texts, rituals, symbols, and institutions. Their conceptualization is central to literary theory and cultural studies, emphasizing how literature, as a form of cultural memory, preserves and reactivates shared knowledge, values, and identity across time. The essay has become foundational in discussions about how cultures remember, how identity is shaped through narrative, and how literature functions not merely as aesthetic expression but as a medium of historical continuity and collective self-reflection.

Summary of “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka

• Introduction of Cultural vs. Communicative Memory

The authors distinguish cultural memory from communicative memory: “We define the concept of cultural memory through a double delimitation that distinguishes it: from ‘communicative’ or ‘everyday memory’… and from science, which does not have the characteristics of memory as it relates to a collective self-image” (Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 126).

Communicative memory is “based exclusively on everyday communications… characterized by a high degree of non-specialization, reciprocity of roles, thematic instability, and disorganization” (p. 127).

• Characteristics of Communicative Memory

It is limited in temporal scope: “this horizon does not extend more than eighty to… one hundred years into the past… three or four generations” (p. 128).

It lacks formal structure and permanence: “The communicative memory offers no fixed point… such fixity can only be achieved through a cultural formation” (p. 128).

• Transition from Communicative to Cultural Memory

The authors challenge Halbwachs’ view that objectified culture loses its memory function, asserting instead that memory persists through “objectivized culture and organized or ceremonial communication” (p. 128).

They introduce the idea of the “concretion of identity”—the stabilization of group identity through memory embedded in cultural forms (p. 129).

• Cultural Memory as Structured, Durable, and Identity-Forming

Cultural memory has a long temporal horizon: “Cultural memory has its fixed point; its horizon does not change with the passing of time” (p. 129).

It is anchored in symbolic forms: “texts, rites, monuments… form ‘islands of time,’… into memory spaces of ‘retrospective contemplativeness'” (p. 129).

• Six Key Features of Cultural Memory

Concretion of Identity
- Cultural memory shapes group identity through selection and opposition: “defined through a kind of identificatory determination in a positive (‘We are this’) or in a negative (‘That’s our opposite’) sense” (p. 130).
Capacity to Reconstruct
- Memory is shaped by the present: “What remains is only that ‘which society in each era can reconstruct within its contemporary frame of reference'” (p. 130).

Formation
- Memory requires objectification: “The objectivation or crystallization of communicated meaning… is a prerequisite of its transmission” (p. 131).
Organization
- It relies on institutional structures and specialized roles: “Cultural memory… always depends on a specialized practice, a kind of ‘cultivation'” (p. 131).
Obligation
- Cultural memory has normative power: “engenders a clear system of values… which structure the cultural supply of knowledge and the symbols” (p. 132).

Reflexivity
- Memory is self-aware and interpretative: “Cultural memory is reflexive in three ways: practice-reflexive, self-reflexive, and reflexive of its own image” (p. 133).

• Conclusion: Cultural Memory and Society

Cultural memory allows a society to see itself and project an identity: “Through its cultural heritage a society becomes visible to itself and to others” (p. 133).
The selection of what is remembered reveals cultural values: “Which past becomes evident in that heritage and which values emerge in its identificatory appropriation tells us much about the constitution and tendencies of a society” (p. 133).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka

Term/Concept	Detailed Explanation	Usage Sentence from Article	Reference
Collective Memory	A shared understanding of the past constructed by a group, rooted in cultural practices rather than biology.	“The specific character that a person derives from belonging to a distinct society and culture… is a result of socialization and customs.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 126
Cultural Memory	Long-term memory maintained through institutions and symbolic forms such as texts, rites, and monuments, shaping group identity across generations.	“Cultural memory has its fixed point; its horizon does not change with the passing of time.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 129
Communicative Memory	Memory based on everyday communication, informal and limited to the past 80–100 years (3–4 generations).	“The concept of ‘communicative memory’ includes those varieties of collective memory that are based exclusively on everyday communications.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 127
Objectivized Culture	Cultural knowledge crystallized in external forms (texts, architecture, rituals), enabling memory to persist beyond individual lives.	“Once living communication crystallized in the forms of objectivized culture… the group relationship… are lost.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 128
Figures of Memory	Anchoring points such as events, festivals, or epics that structure cultural memory across time.	“These fixed points are fateful events of the past, whose memory is maintained through cultural formation.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 129
Concretion of Identity	The formation of group identity through shared memory that distinguishes insiders from outsiders.	“Defined through a kind of identificatory determination in a positive (‘We are this’) or in a negative (‘That’s our opposite’) sense.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 130
Memory Horizon	The temporal range of memory—short in communicative memory, fixed and transcendent in cultural memory.	“Cultural memory has its fixed point; its horizon does not change with the passing of time.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 129
Formation	The process of encoding shared meaning into stable cultural forms (e.g., linguistic, ritual, visual).	“The objectivation or crystallization of communicated meaning… is a prerequisite of its transmission.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 130–131
Organization	Institutional support and specialization (e.g., priests, educators) that structure and transmit cultural memory.	“Cultural memory… always depends on a specialized practice, a kind of ‘cultivation.'”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 131
Obligation	The normative role of memory in reinforcing group values, symbols, and traditions.	“The relation to a normative self-image of the group engenders a clear system of values and differentiations in importance.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 132
Reflexivity	Cultural memory’s capacity to reflect on itself, on practice, and on group identity.	“Cultural memory is reflexive in three ways: practice-reflexive, self-reflexive, and reflexive of its own image.”	Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995, p. 133

Contribution of “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka to Literary Theory/Theories

• Cultural Memory as a Framework for Understanding Texts

The article introduces cultural memory as a central mechanism for transmitting collective identity through literary and cultural forms.
“Cultural memory comprises that body of reusable texts, images, and rituals specific to each society… whose ‘cultivation’ serves to stabilize and convey that society’s self-image” (p. 133).
This concept allows literary theory to consider literature as a medium of cultural self-representation and historical continuity.

• Expansion of Intertextuality through Memory Studies

Assmann and Czaplicka broaden the scope of intertextuality by rooting textual relationships in cultural memory practices rather than purely aesthetic traditions.
Literature participates in a broader cultural memory: “The entire Jewish calendar is based on figures of memory” (p. 129), which also informs religious texts and narratives.

• Reinforcement of Reader-Response and Reception Theories

The concept of reconstructive memory aligns with reader-response theory, emphasizing how cultural context affects interpretation.
“Cultural memory works by reconstructing… every contemporary context relates to these [memory figures] differently” (p. 130).

This supports the idea that meaning is not fixed in texts but re-actualized in different cultural moments.

• Contribution to Post-Structuralist and Identity Theories

By linking memory to identity, the article supports post-structuralist critiques of stable subjectivity, showing identity as narratively and culturally produced.

“Cultural memory preserves the store of knowledge from which a group derives an awareness of its unity and peculiarity” (p. 130).
Literature thus becomes a site of ideological negotiation and identity construction.

• Canon Formation and the Politics of Memory

The work engages indirectly with canon theory, highlighting how cultural memory legitimates certain texts and suppresses others.
“The relation to a normative self-image… structures the cultural supply of knowledge and the symbols” (p. 132).
Literary canons can be seen as expressions of collective memory’s obligation to reinforce identity.

• Literature as Mnemonic Energy

The concept of mnemonic energy—how cultural forms like texts preserve emotional resonance over time—bridges aesthetic and historical analysis.
“In cultural formation, a collective experience crystallizes, whose meaning… may become accessible again across millennia” (p. 129).

Examples of Critiques Through “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka

Literary Work	Critique Through Cultural Memory Theory	Memory Framework Applied
Toni Morrison – Beloved	The novel explores how the trauma of slavery is transmitted across generations. Sethe’s memories serve as figures of memory, anchoring African American cultural identity and history. The community’s rituals and storytelling reinforce collective remembrance.	Figures of Memory; Concretion of Identity; Obligation
Homer – The Odyssey	The epic serves as an objectivized culture that preserves heroic ideals and social norms. Through cultural formation, it functions as a memory archive that reinforces Greek identity across time.	Objectivized Culture; Cultural Formation; Organization
Chinua Achebe – Things Fall Apart	The novel portrays the disruption of communicative memory rooted in Igbo oral tradition by colonial forces. Cultural rituals and kinship structures embody endangered memory systems.	Communicative Memory; Cultural Displacement; Formation
T.S. Eliot – The Waste Land	The poem reflects on post-WWI cultural collapse through fragmented voices and allusions. It uses mnemonic energy and intertextuality to reconstruct Western cultural identity from historical ruins.	Mnemonic Energy; Reconstruction; Reflexivity

Criticism Against “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka

• Overemphasis on Cultural Stability

Critics argue that the concept of cultural memory may overstate the coherence and continuity of collective identities.
It tends to idealize how memory is preserved, potentially underplaying conflict, rupture, and transformation within cultures.

• Insufficient Attention to Power and Exclusion

The theory may neglect how cultural memory is shaped by hegemonic forces that determine which memories are preserved or suppressed.
It does not fully explore how marginalized groups challenge dominant cultural narratives.

• Ambiguity Between Memory and History

Despite distinguishing cultural memory from historical knowledge, the theory sometimes blurs the boundary between remembering and historical reconstruction, leading to conceptual vagueness.

• Limited Engagement with Trauma and Forgetting

The framework prioritizes preservation and transmission, but pays less attention to processes of forgetting, repression, or traumatic memory, which are central in memory studies.

• Essentialist View of Identity

The link between memory and group identity can risk reifying identity as static or homogeneous, rather than recognizing its dynamic and contested nature.

• Underdeveloped Role of the Individual

The theory primarily focuses on collective structures and institutions, potentially neglecting the subjective, personal, and emotional dimensions of memory.

• Application Bias Toward Canonical Texts and Traditions

The theory is often applied to religious, national, or monumental traditions, which may limit its effectiveness in analyzing non-hegemonic or ephemeral cultural forms.

Representative Quotations from “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity” by Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation	Page
“Cultural memory has its fixed point; its horizon does not change with the passing of time.”	Cultural memory ensures long-term stability by preserving key events or meanings that remain constant across generations through symbolic forms like texts and rituals.	p. 129
“Communicative memory… does not extend more than eighty to… one hundred years into the past.”	Unlike cultural memory, communicative memory is short-term, rooted in everyday life and oral communication, typically covering only 3–4 generations.	p. 128
“The objectivation or crystallization of communicated meaning… is a prerequisite of its transmission.”	Lasting memory depends on its transformation into durable cultural forms such as language, rituals, or images, which enable transmission beyond direct communication.	p. 130–131
“Cultural memory preserves the store of knowledge from which a group derives an awareness of its unity and peculiarity.”	This memory fosters collective identity, offering a framework through which a group understands and differentiates itself.	p. 130
“Every individual memory constitutes itself in communication with others.”	Personal memory is socially constructed; individuals remember within and through the frameworks provided by social groups.	p. 127
“Figures of memory… form ‘islands of time,’ islands of a completely different temporality suspended from time.”	Certain cultural symbols and rituals serve as timeless anchors, separating themselves from the flow of ordinary time and anchoring collective memory.	p. 129
“No memory can preserve the past. What remains is only that which society in each era can reconstruct within its contemporary frame of reference.”	Memory is inherently reconstructive; it adapts the past to current contexts and societal needs.	p. 130
“The concept of cultural memory comprises that body of reusable texts, images, and rituals specific to each society…”	Cultural memory is made up of a society’s symbolic repertoire—materials that convey identity and shared values across time.	p. 133
“Cultural memory is reflexive in three ways: practice-reflexive, self-reflexive, and reflexive of its own image.”	It not only stores and transmits meaning but also reflects on social practices, its own processes, and the identity of the group.	p. 133
“Through its cultural heritage a society becomes visible to itself and to others.”	Cultural memory provides the means for societies to articulate and project their identity both internally and externally.	p. 133

“Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner: Summary and Critique

“Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner first appeared in 2012 in the journal Sociology Compass (Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 332–350).

Introduction: “Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner

“Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner first appeared in 2012 in the journal Sociology Compass (Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 332–350). In this groundbreaking article, Weiner proposes an expansive framework for understanding the global dynamics of race and racialization beyond U.S.-centric paradigms. She critiques the absence of unified terminology and analytical tools in comparative race scholarship and introduces Critical Global Race Theory as an empirical and theoretical lens to map and interrogate racialized practices worldwide. Central to her thesis is the notion that race, despite claims of post-racialism or cultural substitution, remains a global structuring force that manifests through essentialization, dehumanization, and exclusion of minority groups while consolidating privileges for dominant (often white) populations. The paper identifies ten empirical indicators—such as citizenship laws, state control, criminalization, spatial segregation, and popular discourse—that scholars can use to assess racialization across varied national and historical contexts.

Weiner also emphasizes the persistent link between race and nationalism, particularly how colonial histories and citizenship regimes produce and maintain racial hierarchies. Importantly, she interrogates the contemporary neoliberal rhetoric of colorblindness that obscures structural inequalities and reifies whiteness as the normative, invisible standard. The article contributes significantly to literary and cultural theory by urging scholars to consider race not as a static biological or ethnic marker, but as a fluid, power-laden social construct shaped by local and global histories. In doing so, Weiner’s work complements and extends the foundational efforts of scholars like Omi and Winant (1994), Bonilla-Silva (2001), and Gilroy (2001), offering a vital intersectional and transnational methodology for analyzing race in literature, politics, and everyday life.

Summary of “Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner

Main Ideas of the Article

Global Relevance of Race: Race remains a powerful global organizing principle despite proclamations of its obsolescence. The article critiques notions like the “end of race” and shows how global systems continue to maintain racial hierarchies (Gilroy, 2001; Hollinger, 2006; Brubaker, 2009).
Call for a Unified Framework: Weiner argues for the expansion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) into a Critical Global Race Theory (CGRT) to analyze racialization processes across diverse national contexts (Weiner, 2012, p. 332).
Power and Racialization: Central to CGRT is an analysis of power—how dominant racial groups construct and maintain racial categories and ideologies that grant them privileges and control over minorities (Lukes, 1974; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).

Ten Empirical Indicators of Racialization: Weiner offers 10 indicators (e.g. citizenship laws, state control, spatial segregation) to identify and analyze racialization empirically in global contexts (Weiner, 2012, pp. 336–340).
Race vs. Ethnicity: The paper critiques the interchangeable use of these terms. It argues that “ethnicity” often masks power differentials that are actually racialized, especially when ethnicity is portrayed as voluntary and equal in status (Cornell & Hartmann, 2002; Grosfoguel, 2004b).
Forms of Racism: Weiner identifies malignant, benign, and benevolent racism, showing how “new racism” uses culture instead of biology to justify inequality in supposedly “colorblind” societies (Jackman, 1994; Bonilla-Silva, 2000).

Link Between Race and Nationalism: Nationalist ideologies, often rooted in colonial histories, use race to define citizenship and belonging, leading to exclusion, statelessness, and violence (Brubaker, 2009; Mignolo, 2002; Mamdani, 2001).
Whiteness and Colorblindness: Whiteness remains invisible and dominant, often masked by “colorblind” ideologies that ignore structural inequality and portray racial outcomes as individual failings (Leonardo, 2002; Feagin, 2009; McIntosh, 1997).
Knowledge Production and Media: Dominant racial narratives shape public discourse, media portrayals, and historical memory, often excluding or distorting minority experiences (Entman & Rojecki, 2001; Goldberg, 2002; Hall, 2000).

Anti-Racist Movements and Resistance: Global resistance efforts challenge racialized structures by rearticulating marginalized identities and demanding equity. However, resistance strategies differ, and not all challenge systemic racism (Kelley, 1996; Ture & Hamilton, 1992; Weiner, 2010).
International Racial Hierarchies: Race operates globally through colonial legacies, international economic systems, and post-9/11 Islamophobia. These dynamics racialize entire nations and peoples (Grosfoguel & Mielants, 2006; Dunn et al., 2007).
Race as a Mobilizing Force: While racial categories constrain, they can also be used to mobilize and resist, though in nations without a racial discourse, mobilization is more difficult (Simon, 2008; Marx, 1998).

Conclusion – Toward a Cosmopolitan Vision: Genuine multiculturalism and cosmopolitan democracy are impossible without dismantling global racial inequalities and confronting whiteness as a central organizing force (Benhabib, 2008; McLaren, 1994; Weiner, 2012, p. 342).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner

Concept / Theory	Definition	Key References from the Article
Critical Race Theory (CRT)	A framework for examining how race and racism are embedded in legal systems, institutions, and societal structures.	Delgado & Stefancic (2001); Omi & Winant (1994); Lukes (1974); Ladson-Billings (1998)
Critical Global Race Theory	An expanded CRT framework to analyze racialization globally using cross-national comparisons and empirical indicators.	Weiner (2012); Winant (2006); Stanfield (2008)
Racialization	The process of socially constructing racial identities and assigning hierarchical value to physical/cultural traits.	Murji & Solomos (2005); Goldberg (2002); Omi & Winant (1994); Said (1979)
Structural Racism	Racism maintained through social structures and institutions, even without individual intent.	Bonilla-Silva (1997, 2009); Essed (1991); Feagin (2006)
Colorblind Racism	Ideology that ignores racial disparities by attributing inequality to individual failings rather than systemic discrimination.	Bonilla-Silva (2001, 2002); Gallagher (2003); Guinier & Torres (2003)
Whiteness Studies	Examines whiteness as an unmarked norm and system of privilege that maintains racial hierarchies.	Frankenberg (1993); McIntosh (1997); Helenon (2010); Gillborn (2005); Leonardo (2002)
Intersectionality	The concept that race intersects with other social categories (gender, class, sexuality) to shape experiences of oppression or privilege.	Collins (2000, 2005); Glenn (2004); McClintock (1995); Stoler (2002)
Race and Nationalism	Explores how racial ideologies are used to define national identity and citizenship, often to exclude racialized groups.	Brubaker (2009); Calhoun (2007); Glenn (2011); Gordon et al. (2010); Cain (2010)
Cultural Racism / New Racism	A shift from overt racism to covert racism based on perceived cultural deficiencies rather than biological inferiority.	Balibar (1991); Bobo et al. (1997); Bonilla-Silva (2000); Modood (2005); Winant (2001)
Double Consciousness	The internal conflict experienced by marginalized groups navigating dominant cultures while maintaining their own racial identity.	DuBois (1995); Fanon (1967); Anzaldúa (1987)
Coloniality of Power	Refers to the enduring legacy of European colonialism in shaping global power relations and racial hierarchies.	Quijano (2000); Grosfoguel (2003, 2010); Mignolo (2002); Nkrumah (1966); Winant (2008)

Contribution of “Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Expansion of Critical Race Theory (CRT)

Globalization of CRT: Weiner pushes CRT beyond U.S. borders to account for racialized practices worldwide.

“This article hopes to expand critical race theory and scholarship across national lines.” (p. 332)

Literary Application: Enables CRT to analyze non-Western texts, diasporic literature, and narratives shaped by global race dynamics.

2. Integration with Postcolonial Theory

Colonialism and Racial Identity: Links between colonialism and race illuminate literary portrayals of empire, resistance, and hybridity.

“Racial meanings and identities are embedded in histories of colonialism… and imperialism.” (p. 334)

Impact: Supports readings influenced by Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, and postcolonial cultural discourse.

3. Proposal of Critical Global Race Theory (CGRT)

New Theoretical Lens: CGRT is introduced as a framework for analyzing race across borders, systems, and institutions.

“This paper calls for a unified terminology… and a global broadening of a critical comparative dialogue of racial practices.” (p. 332)

Application: CGRT enriches world literature analysis, especially in examining racial structures across national literatures.

4. Critical Whiteness Studies in a Global Frame

Global Whiteness as Power: Frames whiteness as a global construct of dominance, visible even in multicultural discourse.

“…power of a dominant racial group… manifests today as a form of neo-liberal colorblindness.” (p. 333)

Application: Allows literary scholars to trace coded whiteness in postcolonial, American, and European texts.

5. “New Racism” through Cultural Essentialism

Shift from Biology to Culture: Weiner defines cultural racism as modern racism’s preferred logic.

“New racism… based on culture… has become the new hallmark of the contemporary global era.” (p. 334)

Impact: Encourages literary critics to analyze symbolic racism and cultural coding in character construction and setting.

6. Intersectionality with Gender, Class, and Sexuality

Interconnected Systems: Builds on Patricia Hill Collins, arguing race is inseparable from other identity categories.

“Race… interacts in critical ways with, class, gender, and sexuality.” (p. 333)

Application: Deepens intersectional literary analysis in feminist and queer theory contexts.

7. Citizenship and Belonging as Literary Themes

Race and Nationhood: Citizenship is shaped by racialized policies, resonating with characters’ exclusion in diasporic and refugee narratives.

“Nationalist discourses and citizenship policies… reflect long-standing racialized perceptions of ‘them’ and ‘us’.” (p. 336)

Application: Supports literary interpretation of ambiguous or stateless characters, especially in migration literature.

8. Empirical Indicators as Literary Analysis Tools

Ten Indicators of Racialization: Weiner offers structural lenses like state control, criminalization, spatial segregation.

“Ten empirical indicators… to determine whether… groups… are subject to racialization.” (p. 332)

Impact: Provides textual frameworks for analyzing race-related tropes, power relations, and institutional exclusion in literature.

9. Coloniality of Power as a Literary Hermeneutic

Power and Knowledge Systems: Uses Quijano’s coloniality to historicize race as a product of epistemic violence and imperial discourse.

“Coloniality of power informs imagery, knowledge, histories… resulting in continued domination.” (p. 336)

Application: Enriches genealogical critique of how race is constructed in literature via dominant knowledge systems.

Examples of Critiques Through “Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner

Literary Work	Application of Critical Global Race Theory (CGRT)	CGRT Concepts Used
*The Reluctant Fundamentalist* by Mohsin Hamid	Analyzes Changez’s exclusion from American identity despite economic assimilation. Highlights racialization of Muslims post-9/11, as discussed by Weiner (p. 340), and citizenship as racialized inclusion/exclusion (p. 336).	Global racialization, racial nationalism, racialized citizenship
*Heart of Darkness* by Joseph Conrad	Deconstructs the portrayal of Africans as silent, shadowy figures. Echoes Weiner’s critique of colonial imagery, othering, and global whiteness as structures of knowledge and domination (p. 336–337).	Coloniality of power, Othering, whiteness, epistemic violence
*Americanah* by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie	Shows how Ifemelu navigates colorblind racism in the U.S. (p. 333–334) and encounters state and cultural racialization in both the U.S. and Nigeria. Reflects CGRT’s call to compare local and global racial mechanisms (p. 332).	Colorblindness, intersectionality, daily microaggressions, transnational racism
*Persepolis* by Marjane Satrapi	Highlights how Iranian identity is racialized in the West post-1979 and post-9/11. Explores Satrapi’s gendered experience of racialization and external ascription (p. 338). Shows how race and religion converge to structure global hierarchies.	Racialized religion, intersectionality (race/gender), boundary permeability, diaspora

Criticism Against “Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner

Overemphasis on Western Theoretical Frameworks

The article heavily relies on Western critical race theorists (e.g., Delgado, Bonilla-Silva, Feagin), which may overlook or marginalize non-Western epistemologies or indigenous frameworks of race and power.

Limited Engagement with Cultural Nuance

While Weiner encourages global comparisons, the ten indicators risk flattening cultural specificities by applying a universalized model of racialization, potentially erasing local contexts and the complexity of ethnic vs. racial distinctions (p. 334–335).

Insufficient Empirical Case Studies

Although the article outlines robust theoretical indicators, it lacks detailed empirical case studies or ethnographic depth that could demonstrate these frameworks in action within specific global contexts.

Race-Centric Lens May Overshadow Other Axes

The centrality of race may inadvertently marginalize intersecting factors such as religion, language, disability, caste, or class, despite acknowledging intersectionality (p. 333). Critics may argue that power is too broadly ascribed to race alone.

Application Challenges in Race-Tacit Contexts

In countries like France, Japan, or the Netherlands, where official racial categories are denied or taboo, the application of CGRT may be met with institutional resistance, making data collection and discourse analysis difficult (p. 343).

Potential for Normative Bias

The article carries a strong normative orientation advocating anti-racist change, which—while ethically sound—might invite critique from positivist or empirically neutral traditions that prefer value-free analysis.

Assumes Race as a Global Constant

CGRT assumes race functions globally in comparable ways, which may obscure fluid definitions of race in multiracial, multiethnic, or postcolonial contexts where racial identities are in flux (p. 333–334).

Underdeveloped Solutions or Policy Recommendations

While the article critiques global racial structures, it offers limited strategies for practical interventions or institutional reforms, which might limit its applicability for policy-makers or activists.

Representative Quotations from “Towards a Critical Global Race Theory” by Melissa F. Weiner with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“This article hopes to expand critical race theory and scholarship across national lines.”	Weiner’s central aim is to internationalize CRT, urging scholars to look beyond the US context and examine racialization globally.
“Race is an organizing principle of society that persists on its own through its deep entrenchment in social structures and institutions.”	Highlights the structural and systemic nature of race, asserting it operates independently of individual prejudice.
“Without acknowledging power differentials, minority ethnic groups may be assumed to have equal power as dominant racial or ethnic groups.”	Critiques the interchangeable use of ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race,’ arguing it masks inequalities and reinforces dominant group power.
“Rather than overtly denying groups access… covert practices reliant upon the language of cultural differences and colorblindness essentialize cultures.”	Describes how modern racism hides behind cultural narratives and “colorblind” ideologies, maintaining systemic inequality.
“Racial meanings and identities are embedded in histories of colonialism rooted in economic and religious ventures, empire, and imperialism.”	Links racial hierarchies directly to the legacy of colonial and imperial practices that shaped global racial formations.
“Nationalism may not only perpetuate racialization but also statelessness.”	Warns that nationalist ideologies can exclude and disenfranchise racialized minorities, leaving them without full rights or recognition.
“By conferring privilege to members, an exclusive white identity cements dominant groups’ power.”	Examines whiteness as an invisible structure that reinforces privilege and maintains existing racial hierarchies.
“Policies created in political climates shaped by laissez-faire individualism often ignore histories of inequality.”	Criticizes neoliberalism for erasing historical contexts of oppression and blaming individuals for systemic failures.
“Minorities often develop double consciousnesses, wherein they struggle to be both members of a subordinate racial group within the national culture.”	References Du Bois’ concept to explain how marginalized individuals experience internal conflicts under racial oppression.
“The use of ‘race’ when it empirically exists… is essential for the desistence of racial inequalities and, perhaps one day, race itself.”	Concludes with a call for critical global racial analysis, arguing that we must first confront race to transcend it.

“Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore: Summary and Critique

“Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore first appeared in the New Literary History, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Spring, 1990), in a special issue titled New Historicisms, New Histories, and Others, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Introduction: “Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore

“Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore first appeared in the New Literary History, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Spring, 1990), in a special issue titled New Historicisms, New Histories, and Others, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This influential article marks a key moment in the intersection of literary theory and politics, where Dollimore articulates and defends the critical project of cultural materialism against critiques from feminist and Marxist humanist scholars such as Carol Neely, Lynda Boose, and Kiernan Ryan. Dollimore argues that cultural materialism, while sharing a common ground with New Historicism, diverges significantly in its attention to subversion, power dynamics, and the ideological operations of literature, especially in the Renaissance. The essay is notable for defending a politicized criticism that examines the intersections of gender, class, sexuality, and ideology, exemplified through discussions of Shakespearean drama, particularly Measure for Measure and Antony and Cleopatra. Dollimore’s insistence on historicizing identity and resisting essentialist notions of gender and sexuality marked a significant intervention in literary theory, affirming cultural materialism’s commitment to analyzing literature not just as artistic expression, but as a site of political and ideological struggle.

Summary of “Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore

Cultural Materialism vs. New Historicism

Dollimore recounts early aspirations to ally British Cultural Materialism with American New Historicism, as seen in Political Shakespeare (1985) (p. 471).

Despite political similarities, key theoretical differences persist—Cultural Materialism often seeks subversion, while New Historicism tends to emphasize containment (p. 472).
He criticizes those who collapse the two approaches, particularly Carol Neely, who labels both as “cult-historicists,” marginalizing British perspectives (p. 472).

Feminist Critique and Misrepresentations

Feminist critics like Neely and Boose misinterpret Cultural Materialist work by claiming it marginalizes or silences gender issues (p. 474).
Dollimore counters that scholars like McLuskie and Jardine offer materialist feminist readings that critique ideological constructions of femininity rather than merely seeking empowerment of female characters (pp. 473–474).
He stresses that pointing out silencing or marginalization (e.g., prostitutes in Measure for Measure) is not the same as enacting it (p. 475).

Constructionism vs. Essentialism

Dollimore supports a constructionist view of identity, arguing gender and sexuality are historically and culturally contingent rather than fixed (pp. 474–476).
He warns of the political pitfalls of both constructionist and essentialist positions, particularly within LGBTQ+ politics, noting that appeals to biological determinism may not prevent persecution (p. 479).

Critique of Marxist Humanism (Kiernan Ryan)

Dollimore critiques Kiernan Ryan’s optimistic Marxist humanist reading of Shakespeare, which frames the plays as expressing “revolutionary imaginative vision” and universal human potential (pp. 479–481).
He argues Ryan’s faith in shared humanity ignores the historical specificity of ideological contradictions and misrepresents cultural materialist positions as fatalist or cynical (p. 481).

Dollimore instead invokes a tradition of Marxist critique (e.g., Benjamin, Gramsci, Adorno) that recognizes pessimism of intellect alongside the possibility of resistance (p. 482).

Gender Subversion and Cross-Dressing

Renaissance cross-dressing is analyzed as a materialist site of gender transgression and social critique (pp. 483–484).

Dollimore emphasizes how cross-dressing exposes gender as a social construct and disrupts patriarchal order (p. 484).
The “Hic Mulier” tract illustrates how women in male dress challenged gender hierarchies and social codes (p. 483).

Camp, Sexuality, and Antony and Cleopatra

Dollimore offers a radical reinterpretation of Antony and Cleopatra, emphasizing theatricality, gender performance, and camp aesthetics (pp. 485–489).
He reads Cleopatra as a camp figure whose exaggerated femininity and performativity resist romantic and moralistic interpretations (pp. 488–489).
The play’s love and power dynamics reveal how sexuality is deeply politicized, shaped by historical tensions, and embedded in ideological conflict (pp. 486–487).

Conclusion: Politics, Performance, and Desire

Dollimore calls for politically engaged yet pleasurable readings of Shakespeare, which recognize ideological contradictions while embracing creative subversion (p. 490).
He proposes a gender-subversive staging of Antony and Cleopatra, casting Cleopatra with a boy actor and Antony with a woman, thus undermining fixed gender norms and celebrating performative identity (pp. 489–490).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore

Term/Concept	Definition in Context	Usage in the Article
Cultural Materialism	A form of Marxist-influenced criticism that sees literature as embedded in material social and political contexts.	Used as a critical framework distinct from new historicism, emphasizing the political subversiveness of texts and their potential to interrogate dominant ideologies.
New Historicism	A critical practice linking literature and history, focusing on power, discourse, and cultural practices.	Compared with cultural materialism; Dollimore critiques new historicism for its tendency to overemphasize containment over subversion.
Feminism	A movement and theoretical framework advocating for women’s rights and gender equality.	Engages with feminist critics such as Neely and Boose, examining tensions between feminist readings and cultural materialist analysis.
Marxist Humanism	A strand of Marxism emphasizing human agency, ethical concerns, and liberation.	Critiqued through Kiernan Ryan’s reading of Shakespeare; Dollimore sees Ryan’s version as utopian and idealist, lacking historical nuance.
Subversion	Acts or readings that undermine or challenge dominant ideologies or power structures.	Cultural materialism is associated with identifying subversive elements in Shakespeare, in contrast to new historicism’s emphasis on containment.
Containment	The notion that dominant ideologies absorb and neutralize subversive ideas.	Attributed to new historicism, which is criticized for overemphasizing this containment in literary texts.
Gender Critique	Analysis of how gender and sexuality are socially constructed and represented.	Explored through discussions of feminist and psychoanalytic criticism, especially in the context of Shakespearean drama and cross-dressing.
Constructionism	The theory that identity (gender, sexuality, etc.) is shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts.	Used to support arguments about the instability of gender and the cultural construction of identity, especially in opposition to essentialist views.
Essentialism	The belief in stable, innate identities, such as fixed gender or sexuality.	Criticized by Dollimore and associated with early feminist readings that overlook the historicity and variability of gender.
Transgressive Reinscription	A strategy that turns dominant norms against themselves by mimicking or exaggerating them.	Illustrated in discussions of cross-dressing and Cleopatra’s performance, used to show how subversion operates from within ideology rather than escaping it.
Camp	A mode of aestheticism that exaggerates theatricality and artifice, often to critique norms.	Proposed as a productive lens for reimagining Cleopatra and Antony and Cleopatra as a subversive play about desire, performance, and power.
Representation	The depiction of people, identities, or ideologies in cultural or literary texts.	Explored as both an act of power and potential resistance; central to arguments about the silencing and marginalization of women, especially prostitutes, in literature and history.
Cross-Dressing	The act of wearing clothes traditionally associated with the opposite gender.	Examined as a disruptive act that questions fixed gender roles and is loaded with cultural anxieties in the early modern period.
Hegemony	The dominance of one social group over others, maintained through ideology rather than force.	Implicit in discussions of how Shakespeare’s plays reflect and resist dominant social orders; cultural materialism investigates how ideology functions within literary representation.
Ideology	A system of beliefs or values that supports social structures and power relations.	Central to cultural materialist critique; texts are analyzed for how they both reflect and challenge dominant ideologies, particularly concerning gender and class.

Contribution of “Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore to Literary Theory/Theories

Cultural Materialism

Redefinition of Political Criticism in Shakespeare Studies: Dollimore asserts that cultural materialism is not just another historical approach but a politicized criticism that foregrounds subversion within literary texts (p. 472–474).
Textual Subversion vs. Containment: He distinguishes cultural materialism from new historicism by emphasizing the potential for texts (e.g. Measure for Measure) to subvert dominant ideologies rather than reinforce them (p. 473–474).

Interdisciplinary Methodology: Encourages integrating history, ideology, and literary form, opposing reductionist readings of literature as mere ideological tools (p. 479).

Feminist Literary Theory

Critique of Essentialist Feminism: Challenges readings that treat women’s issues as separable from other social categories like class and race, arguing for a non-essentialist, intersectional feminism (p. 472–475).

Defense of Feminist Materialism: Engages with criticisms by Neely and Boose, arguing that cultural materialist feminists like McLuskie and Jardine unveil how gender ideologies function historically rather than through universal female experiences (p. 474–475).
Representation of Women and Power: Uses characters like prostitutes and Cleopatra to show how women are symbolically central yet politically marginalized, complicating assumptions of feminist agency (p. 475–477, 488–489).

Marxist Humanism

Critique of Idealist Humanism: Challenges Kiernan Ryan’s utopian, idealist version of Marxist humanism that sees Shakespeare as articulating timeless humanist values (p. 479–481).
Historical Pessimism vs. Humanist Optimism: Emphasizes the contingency and contradictions of history, rejecting the belief that literature automatically advances human liberation (p. 481–482).
Literature and Ideology: Argues that literature, while often complicit in ideology, can still illuminate structural contradictions in society and consciousness (p. 482–484).

Queer Theory / Gender and Sexuality Studies

Construction of Sexuality and Gender: Advocates for understanding identity as socially and historically constructed, not biologically fixed (p. 476–478).
Cross-Dressing and Gender Instability: Analyzes Renaissance cross-dressing as a site of anxiety and resistance, revealing early insights into performativity (p. 483–484).

Camp Aesthetics and Subversive Desire: Reimagines Antony and Cleopatra through the lens of camp to illustrate how desire and performance destabilize normative gender roles (p. 488–489).

Representation and Ideology Critique

Power of Representation: Emphasizes that literary texts do not merely reflect the world but actively shape ideology and social meaning (p. 478–479).

Silencing of Marginalized Voices: Highlights how literature and history erase or distort the voices of marginalized figures (e.g. prostitutes), and how criticism must engage with this absence (p. 476–477).
Interrogation of High Culture: Challenges the moral and aesthetic authority of canonical literature (e.g. Shakespeare) by showing how it is complicit in, yet can also critique, dominant values (p. 480–482).

Examples of Critiques Through “Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore

Literary Work	Critique through Cultural Materialism	Feminist Perspective Highlighted	Marxist Humanist Angle
Measure for Measure	Shows how power and ideology are displaced onto marginalized figures like prostitutes; critiques surveillance and moral order.	Highlights the erasure and voicelessness of women (e.g., prostitutes), revealing gendered power dynamics.	Exposes how ideological structures repress subversive elements within society under guise of morality and order.
Othello	Analyzes how crisis and social anxiety are displaced onto vulnerable figures like Bianca.	Reveals the construction of women as untrustworthy or “whores”; critiques patriarchal jealousy and control.	Demonstrates how racial and sexual difference are manipulated to maintain hegemonic power.
King Lear	Seen as a dramatization of patriarchal ideology’s anxiety about disorder and succession.	McLuskie critiques the play’s misogyny rooted in ascetic traditions that demonize female insubordination.	Challenges the assumed naturalness of authority by showing its ideological construction and collapse.
Antony and Cleopatra	Desire and power are intertwined; Cleopatra’s representation challenges aesthetic and political binaries.	Cleopatra’s camp performance and gender subversions expose and resist traditional notions of femininity and power.	Reflects on how sexual and political identities are constructed under empire and declining masculine ideals.

Criticism Against “Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore

Oversimplification of Feminist Contributions: Critics like Carol Neely and Lynda Boose argue that Dollimore and associated materialist critiques often marginalize or displace feminist concerns, such as gender and female subjectivity.

Failure to Prioritize Women’s Voices: Feminist critics charge that by focusing on power structures and ideology, materialist readings (e.g., of Measure for Measure) silence women and reduce gender issues to class or other forms of subjugation.
Accusation of Political Correctness: Boose claims that Dollimore’s rejection of co-opting Shakespeare leads to a “puritanical” stance that sacrifices pleasure in literary engagement for ideological rigor.
Conflation with New Historicism: Some critics, including Neely, conflate cultural materialism with new historicism, leading to mischaracterizations—Dollimore points out this results in misunderstanding British work as derivative or superficial.

Neglect of Utopian and Emancipatory Potential: Kiernan Ryan accuses Dollimore of presenting a negative, cynical view of literature, claiming cultural materialists find only domination and no space for resistance or humanistic hope.
Repressive Tone and Solemn Discourse: Dollimore acknowledges critiques that cultural materialist writing can be overly solemn, punitive, or humorless, lacking in aesthetic or emotional engagement.

Representative Quotations from “Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“I want to rearticulate and develop some of the objectives of a materialist criticism…”	Dollimore’s central aim is to clarify the political and critical goals of cultural materialism, distinguishing it from new historicism.
“To believe in cultural politics as a praxis and not just a position is to recognize the need for alliances between positions which are not identical.”	Emphasizes the importance of building coalitions (e.g., between feminists, Marxists) even amid theoretical differences, to foster change.
“McLuskie is, in the first instance, seeking to practice the responsibilities of the historian as well as the commitment of the feminist…”	Dollimore defends Kathleen McLuskie’s feminist critique of Shakespeare against misreadings that dismiss her analysis as anti-pleasure or dogmatic.
“We attend also to the way diverse social anxieties are displaced onto or into sexuality…”	Highlights a key aspect of materialist reading: how societal fears are often projected into gender and sexual norms in literature.
“Try telling a couple of fascists that… the homosexual they are kicking to death is only a discursive construct…”	A critique of extreme constructionist views detached from political realities; shows Dollimore’s balanced stance between theory and lived experience.
“Shakespeare’s plays become pegs on which to hang aspirations commendable in themselves but which here echo the clichés of the party hack.”	Critiques Kiernan Ryan’s Marxist humanist reading of Shakespeare for being overly idealistic and politically simplistic.
“There is nothing to stop homophobia… from appropriating the constructionist view.”	Cautions that deconstructing identity (e.g., sexuality) must be done carefully to avoid enabling oppressive ideologies.
“Camp is one further means whereby the artifice of the theater is turned back upon what it represents…”	Suggests that camp, particularly in Antony and Cleopatra, reveals the performative nature of gender and power.
“Cleopatra is the first great queen of the English stage, camping it up outrageously…”	Celebrates Cleopatra as a subversive, performative figure who disrupts normative gender and sexual roles.
“Subversive knowledge emerges under pressure of contradictions in the dominant ideology…”	One of Dollimore’s key theoretical insights: that resistance and critique are born from internal fractures in hegemonic ideologies.

“New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang: Summary and Critique

“New Historicism in Rip Van Winkle” by Quan Wang first appeared in The Explicator, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2014 (pp. 320–323), and offers a compelling reinterpretation of Washington Irving’s classic tale through the lens of New Historicist literary theory.

Introduction: “New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang

“New Historicism in Rip Van Winkle” by Quan Wang first appeared in The Explicator, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2014 (pp. 320–323), and offers a compelling reinterpretation of Washington Irving’s classic tale through the lens of New Historicist literary theory. In this article, Wang argues that Rip Van Winkle functions not as a straightforward historical narrative but as a layered, rhetorical construction that transforms subjective fable into objective historical “truth” through discursive authority. Wang draws on New Historicist thought—particularly the idea that history is a textual and rhetorical construct shaped by power and discourse—to analyze how the story gradually gains credibility via multiple narrators: Rip himself, Peter Vanderdonk, Knickerbocker, and Geoffrey Crayon. Each figure lends increasing legitimacy, converting a fantastical personal account into national myth. Referencing theorists like Michel Foucault and Hayden White, Wang underscores that truth in historical storytelling is not determined by factual accuracy but by the authority of the speaker and cultural consensus. Thus, Irving is portrayed as an early New Historicist, blurring the lines between myth and history to create a founding narrative for American identity. The article is important in the realm of literary theory as it not only exemplifies the New Historicist critique of objectivity in historical writing but also repositions Irving’s work within a modern theoretical framework, showing how literature serves to both reflect and construct national consciousness.

Summary of “New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang

• History as a Subjective Construct, Not Objective Record
“This article proposes a New Historical reading of Rip Van Winkle: History, instead of being a record of facts, is a subjective construct” (Wang 320).
Wang argues that Irving transforms a fairy tale into historical truth by manipulating narrative structure and authoritative voices, thereby suggesting that what we call “history” is shaped by rhetoric and discourse, not objective reality.

• The Role of Narrators in Creating Historical Authority
“Van Winkle’s experience is told by four figures with different efficacy” (321).
Rip’s initially “incredible” tale becomes accepted as truth through narration by:
Peter Vanderdonk, whose lineage and reputation lend social credibility: “assured the company that it was a fact” (Irving, “Rip” 14).
Knickerbocker, whose scholarly persona and legal references authenticate the tale: “a certificate on the subject taken before a country justice” (16).
Geoffrey Crayon, who frames the story posthumously, imbuing it with detached objectivity.

• Authority over Content: Foucault and Symbolic Legitimacy
“Truth is not determined by the content but by ‘who is speaking under what circumstances’” (Foucault 124, qtd. in Wang 321).
Even when the judge signs with a cross due to illiteracy, the legal stamp still legitimizes the tale: “What matters is symbolic endorsement of law, not individual evaluation of the content” (Wang 321).

• From Local Tale to National Myth
“It is now admitted into all historical collections” (Irving, “Rip” 4).
The story becomes cultural “food,” both literally (on new-year cakes) and symbolically, forming part of America’s historical identity.

• Posthumous Framing and the Illusion of Objectivity
“Crayon, as an ex-contemporary, is retrospectively reconstructing the story from ‘historicality’” (Wang 322).
Crayon’s narration appears more “objective” due to its posthumous stance, reinforcing the transformation of fiction into official history through narrative distance and intertextual references.

• Irving’s Other Works Support the Constructed Nature of History
“History fades into fable, fact becomes clouded with doubt and controversy” (Sketch Book 903).
Irving’s A History of New York illustrates how revisions were driven not by new facts but by exploiting “rhetorical possibilities” (McGann 350), reinforcing the view that history is narratively and ideologically constructed.

• Historical Writing as Rhetoric, Not Science
“Historical writing in the eighteenth century ‘was regarded as a branch of the art of rhetoric’” (White 64, qtd. in Wang 323).
New Historicism revives this earlier view, challenging the idea of history as an objective discipline and returning to a rhetorical and literary understanding of past events.

• Change in Signifiers, Not Real Change
“The sign of King George is metamorphosed into that of General Washington” (Wang 323).
For Rip, the American Revolution had little personal impact. The supposed progress is only symbolic, a shift in signs rather than substance—highlighting Irving’s skepticism about the myth of linear historical progress.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang

Term/Concept	Definition	Context in the Article
New Historicism	A literary theory that views history as a construct shaped by power, discourse, and cultural context.	Central framework; Wang reads Rip Van Winkle as a narrative that shows history is “a subjective construct” (Wang 320).
Historicality	The quality of being historical; how events are retrospectively reconstructed into coherent narratives.	Used to describe Geoffrey Crayon’s role in turning Rip’s tale into “historical truth” from a posthumous perspective (Wang 322).
Rhetorical Possibilities	The capacity of language and narrative to shape perception and meaning.	Seen in Irving’s revisions of A History of New York, which were not based on new facts but on “rhetorical possibilities” (McGann 350).
Symbolic Authority	Authority derived from symbols of power (law, scholarship) rather than content truth.	The “certificate” signed with a cross still grants truth to Rip’s tale due to its symbolic legal power (Wang 321).
Intertextuality	The relationship between texts and how one text shapes the meaning of another.	Peter Vanderdonk’s validation of Rip’s tale draws on the established legend of Hudson, showing “intertextual consistency” (Wang 321).
Paper Authority	The notion that written, official-looking documents are trusted regardless of their accuracy.	Kirk Curnutt’s idea that people trust “paper authority” blindly, reinforcing Wang’s argument about symbolic legitimacy (Wang 321).
Configuration (of events)	Hayden White’s idea that historical meaning comes from how events are plotted narratively.	Wang uses this to argue that Irving creates meaning through plot structure, not through historical facts (Wang 322).
Within-time-ness	Events narrated within their own temporal context, as opposed to a detached historical perspective.	Applied to Rip, Peter, and Knickerbocker, whose narratives are situated within the timeline of the story (Wang 322).
Posthumous Writing	Narration presented after the fact or death, lending objectivity and narrative distance.	Geoffrey Crayon’s role is described as a “posthumous” narrator who frames the tale as a credible historical account (Wang 322).

Contribution of “New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Contribution to New Historicism
Redefining Historical Truth as Discursively Constructed
Wang shows that Irving transforms a “marvellous” tale into a historically accepted narrative not through factual content, but through authoritative discourse.
“This article proposes a New Historical reading of ‘Rip Van Winkle’: History, instead of being a record of facts, is a subjective construct” (Wang 320).
Illustrates the Power of Narrative Authority
Figures like Peter Vanderdonk, Knickerbocker, and Crayon shape the public’s perception of Rip’s tale as historical reality.
“Truth is not determined by the content but by ‘who is speaking under what circumstances’” (Foucault 124, qtd. in Wang 321).

2. Contribution to Rhetorical Theory and Hayden White’s Historiography
Narrative Plot Over Factual Accuracy
Wang draws on Hayden White to argue that the significance of events lies in how they are “configured” through narrative.
“The significance of an event could be revealed only in ‘the configuration of them [events] through the instrumentality of plot’” (White 51, qtd. in Wang 322).
Posthumous Framing and the Illusion of Objectivity
Geoffrey Crayon’s role as narrator distances the tale from subjective memory and adds historical gravitas.
“Crayon, as an ex-contemporary, is retrospectively reconstructing the story from ‘historicality’” (Wang 322).

3. Contribution to Foucault’s Discourse and Power
Symbolic Authority Overrides Truth
The villagers’ acceptance of Rip’s story is driven by institutional symbols (e.g., legal certificates), not logic.
“What matters is symbolic endorsement of law, not individual evaluation of the content” (Wang 321).
Blind Trust in Institutionalized Knowledge
Wang highlights society’s faith in legal and scholarly authority even when those institutions may lack substance.
Kirk Curnutt describes it as “people’s blind faith in ‘paper authority’” (Curnutt 32, qtd. in Wang 321).

4. Contribution to the Study of National Identity and Myth-Making
Transformation of Fiction into Founding Myth
Irving’s tale becomes part of America’s national historical narrative, functioning as a cultural myth.
“It is now admitted into all historical collections” and his image is on “new-year cakes” (Irving, “Rip” 4; Wang 321).
National Progress as Rhetorical Illusion
The shift from King George to General Washington is a symbolic change without real transformation in Rip’s life.
“The change of signifiers is to flatter our imagination that we have made progress” (Wang 323).

5. Contribution to Meta-History and Historiography
Irving’s History as Literary Performance
Through A History of New York, Wang reveals Irving’s awareness of history as rhetorical play, not factual documentation.
“Irving’s exploitation of ‘rhetorical possibilities’” in revisions indicates the malleability of history (McGann 350, qtd. in Wang 322).
History as Cyclical, Not Linear
By referencing Kant’s contradictory historical conclusions, Wang emphasizes the imagined nature of progress.
“Historical progress exists only in our imagination” (Wang 323).

Examples of Critiques Through “New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang

Literary Work	Application of Wang’s New Historicism	Insight Gained
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter	Like Irving’s use of authoritative narrators, Hawthorne’s Custom House narrator frames Hester’s tale as a recovered artifact, creating an illusion of historic truth through legal and moral authority.	Truth is socially validated and institutionalized rather than inherently factual.
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	The ghost story element mirrors Rip’s “incredible” tale, gaining legitimacy through collective memory and oral history. Authority comes from communal trauma and generational testimony.	History emerges from marginalized voices and emotional truth rather than written record.
George Orwell’s 1984	Like Rip’s tale becoming official history, Orwell’s Ministry of Truth rewrites past events to fit the present narrative. Authority, not factuality, dictates public belief.	Power structures fabricate history to control identity and memory.
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart	The clash between Igbo oral tradition and European written history echoes Wang’s idea of multiple narrative authorities shaping history. Colonial archives mirror Crayon’s role in legitimizing one view.	Historical truth is constructed through conflict between indigenous voices and colonial authority.

Criticism Against “New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang

Overemphasis on Discourse, Neglect of Material History
Wang focuses heavily on discursive authority and symbolic legitimization but offers little analysis of the material, economic, or political conditions of early America.
The article may appear detached from historical specificity, treating history as a purely textual phenomenon.

Reliance on Authority Figures May Reinforce Elitism
While Wang critiques symbolic authority (e.g., Peter Vanderdonk, Knickerbocker), he also accepts their role in shaping “truth”, potentially reinforcing the power of elite narrators without questioning deeper power dynamics.

Lack of Engagement with Marginalized Voices
The article does not consider whose histories are silenced in the process of Rip’s story becoming “historical truth.”
A feminist or postcolonial perspective might critique Wang for failing to address gender, race, or class in the construction of national myth.

Ambiguity Between Authorial Intent and Theoretical Reading
Wang blurs the line between Irving’s literary technique and New Historicist ideology, sometimes treating Irving as if he were consciously theorizing history, which may be an anachronistic projection.

Potential Circular Reasoning in Legitimization
The argument that Rip’s story becomes historical because authoritative figures validate it, and that authority is credible because it validates the story, risks circular logic.

Neglect of Reader’s Role in Meaning-Making
Wang centers narrative authority and textual framing but overlooks reader reception and the role of audience interpretation in constructing historical meaning.

Minimal Contrast with Other Theories
The article could benefit from clearer distinctions or dialogue with competing literary theories (e.g., structuralism, postmodernism, or Marxism), which would strengthen its theoretical position.

Representative Quotations from “New Historicism in RIP VAN WINKLE” by Quan Wang with Explanation

1. “History, instead of being a record of facts, is a subjective construct.” (Wang 320)
Central thesis: History is shaped by discourse, not objective truth.
2. “Rip Van Winkle’s experience is an ‘incredible’ story but finally becomes historical reality with ‘unquestionable authority.’” (Irving, “Rip” 4)
The tale’s transformation from fantasy to accepted history illustrates how social belief and narrative framing define truth.
3. “Truth is not determined by the content but by ‘who is speaking under what circumstances.’” (Foucault 124)
Authority of the speaker matters more than the verifiability of the content—key New Historicist idea.
4. “Peter’s social prestige reduces their suspicion and adds much authority to Rip’s story.” (Wang 321)
Social status acts as a tool for legitimizing narratives and shaping public belief.
5. “The certificate from a legal authority suggests official recognition of Van Winkle’s story.” (Wang 321)
Institutional backing lends legitimacy, regardless of truth—history becomes an institutional product.
6. “Crayon… is retrospectively reconstructing the story from ‘historicality.’” (Wang 322)
Geoffrey Crayon’s role exemplifies posthumous narrative distance, giving the tale an illusion of detached objectivity.
7. “History fades into fable, fact becomes clouded with doubt and controversy.” (The Sketch Book 903)
Irving acknowledges history’s tendency to dissolve into myth—reinforcing the cyclical relationship between fiction and history.
8. “Irving’s exploitation of ‘rhetorical possibilities.’” (McGann 350, qtd. in Wang 322)
Irving reshaped his texts not due to new facts but for rhetorical effect, showing awareness of narrative power.
9. “The significance of an event could be revealed only in ‘the configuration of them [events] through the instrumentality of plot.’” (White 51)
History is a literary structure: events gain meaning through how they’re told, not through their factual existence.
10. “The change of signifiers is to flatter our imagination that we have made progress.” (Wang 323)
American independence is symbolically encoded (e.g., King George to General Washington) but does not reflect genuine societal transformation for Rip.

“The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan: Summary and Critique

“The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan first appeared in the New Literary History journal in the Spring of 1990 (Vol. 21, No. 3), published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Introduction: “The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan

“The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan first appeared in the New Literary History journal in the Spring of 1990 (Vol. 21, No. 3), published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal article, Lehan critiques the foundational assumptions of the New Historicism, particularly its reliance on synchronic or spatialized conceptions of time at the expense of diachronic, process-oriented understandings of history. Drawing from thinkers like Foucault and Derrida, Lehan argues that New Historicism, while claiming to eschew grand narratives, paradoxically imposes paradigmatic constructs that suppress temporal progression and ideological development. He emphasizes the political and ideological implications embedded in literary forms, advocating for a renewed engagement with historical process and narrative temporality. Lehan’s essay is crucial to literary theory for exposing the methodological limitations of New Historicism and for urging a return to historicized readings that account for cultural, political, and temporal dynamics in literature.

Summary of “The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan

● The Incoherence of New Historicism as a Methodology

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

● Suppression of Historical Process Through the Synchronic Turn

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

● The Shift from Causality to Representation Undermines History

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

● Postmodern Denial of Historical Meaning as Ideological Erasure

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

● Structuralist and Poststructuralist Denials of History Are Paradoxically Historicized

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

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

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

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

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

● Case Study: Tropological Misreading of Sister Carrie

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

● The Ethical Importance of Narrative Sequence and Causality

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

● Literary Subgenres as Expressions of Historical Change

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

● Intertextuality as Historicized Dialogue

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

● Reinstating Historical Process in Literary Studies

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

Final Assessment

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

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan

Term/Concept	Meaning	Usage in the Article
New Historicism	A literary theory that emphasizes the cultural, social, and political contexts of texts, often using historical documents alongside literary works.	Criticized by Lehan for lacking a unified methodology and for collapsing historical sequence into tropological readings of texts.
Synchronic Time	Time viewed as static and spatial, focusing on structures and paradigms rather than historical sequence.	Critiqued for replacing narrative flow and causality with static representations, leading to a loss of historical process and political meaning.
Diachronic Time	Time understood as linear, causal, and unfolding—emphasizing sequence and historical change.	Advocated by Lehan as essential for understanding literary narratives and their political and historical dimensions.
Representation	The act of depicting or interpreting reality through rhetorical or symbolic forms, often emphasizing language over material context.	Seen as a dominant approach in New Historicism that flattens history into rhetorical tropes, thereby aestheticizing and depoliticizing texts.
Paradigm	A conceptual framework or model used to interpret historical and cultural data, often seen as replacing linear narratives.	Used to describe Foucault’s “epistemes” which, Lehan argues, deny continuity and process by treating history as a series of disconnected conceptual shifts.
Tropological Reading	An interpretive method that focuses on figurative language, symbols, and rhetorical devices in texts.	Criticized by Lehan for reducing complex historical narratives to isolated metaphors or signs, thereby ignoring time and causality.
Episteme	Foucault’s term for an overarching knowledge structure that defines the conditions of thought in a given era.	Questioned by Lehan for suggesting abrupt historical ruptures and lacking explanation for transitions between paradigms.
Ideology	A system of ideas that shapes cultural, social, or political beliefs, often unconsciously embedded in narratives and historical accounts.	Lehan argues that ideology is inherent in concepts of time and representation and that postmodern critics often displace ideology while inadvertently reaffirming it.

Contribution of “The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critique of New Historicism

Identifies methodological incoherence: Lehan argues that New Historicism lacks a unifying methodology, offering “a series of discrete and diverse readings” rather than a coherent theoretical framework (p. 536).
Challenges synchronic bias: He criticizes New Historicism’s tendency to favor synchronic (spatial) readings, which freeze historical narrative and suppress diachronic (temporal) movement (p. 538).

Warns against aestheticizing history: Lehan asserts that turning history into tropes or representations, as in the Berkeley school, robs texts of political agency and historical process (pp. 540–541).

2. Contribution to Historicism and Diachronic Literary Analysis

Reasserts process and narrative in history: Lehan calls for restoring diachronic time to literary criticism, arguing that history involves “a flow of time” that representation-based theories often ignore (p. 535).

Links ideology to temporality: He posits that how we conceptualize time reflects ideological commitments, even when denied (p. 536).
Advocates historical reading of genres: Through examples like Sister Carrie, The Great Gatsby, and gothic novels, he shows how subgenres are tied to historical shifts, rejecting the ahistorical flattening of textual meaning (pp. 541–547).

3. Response to Structuralism and Poststructuralism

Critiques structuralist universalism: Lehan finds Levi-Strauss’s belief in universal mental structures as undermining historical difference, making time and culture redundant (p. 537).
Challenges Derridean suspension: He argues that Derrida’s concept of deferral and deconstruction leads to a denial of agency and ethical time, resulting in a “world robbed of process and agency” (p. 538).
Demystifies de Man’s rhetoric: Lehan critiques de Man for collapsing narrative meaning by focusing on isolated rhetorical moments, thereby repressing historical and political context (p. 539).

4. Engagement with Marxist and Materialist Theory

Emphasizes historical materialism: Through critique of works like Walter Benn Michaels’ The Gold Standard and the Logic of Naturalism, Lehan exposes how tropological readings ignore economic and material determinants (pp. 540–543).
Connects literary forms to socio-economic shifts: He traces the emergence of genres (e.g., detective fiction, Western, naturalist novel) to transitions such as urbanization, capitalism, and empire, aligning with a Marxist view of base-superstructure (pp. 546–550).

5. Revisions to Periodization and Literary History

Replaces static periods with historical process: Lehan suggests abandoning rigid literary period labels in favor of understanding “literary naturalism” and “modernism” as responses to the same socio-economic realities (p. 552).
Intertextuality as historicized dialogue: He reframes intertextuality not as infinite textual play but as historically situated dialogues among writers and movements (p. 551).

Examples of Critiques Through “The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan

Literary Work	Theoretical Framework from Lehan	Explanation of the Critique
Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser	Critique of Representational Tropes; Defense of Narrative Causality and Diachronic Time	Lehan challenges Walter Benn Michaels’ reading that reduces Sister Carrie to a trope of capitalist desire. He argues that this suppresses Dreiser’s naturalistic structure, which depends on cause and effect and environmental determinism. The novel’s temporal sequence and ideological critique are essential.
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Temporal Process and Historical Unfolding; Opposition to Rhetorical Suspension	Lehan resists poststructuralist interpretations that freeze Gatsby at the level of language and metaphor. He emphasizes the novel’s narrative flow and historical critique of American romantic ideals, capitalist decay, and urban alienation through diachronic storytelling.
The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot	Cyclical Historical Time; Critique of Spatialization of Temporal Events	Lehan interprets Eliot’s “falling towers” motif as part of a cyclical view of history, showing imperial decline. He argues that reading Eliot purely in synchronic terms (as some new historicists do) misses the poem’s embedded historical consciousness and critique of cultural entropy.
The Virginian by Owen Wister and Shane by Jack Schaefer	Historicized Subgenre Analysis; Western as Cultural Encoding of Social and Class Transition	Lehan treats the Western as a historically determined subgenre. He shows how both novels reflect changing attitudes toward land, masculinity, and class—embodying ideologies of frontier conquest, natural aristocracy, and American exceptionalism. These texts mirror historical changes in national identity.

Criticism Against “The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan

Overgeneralization of Postmodern Thinkers:
Lehan tends to group together disparate figures such as Foucault, Derrida, and de Man under a single critical lens, potentially oversimplifying their distinct methodologies and philosophical nuances.
Excessive Nostalgia for Diachronic Models:
His strong preference for diachronic history and narrative progression may seem nostalgic or conservative, potentially neglecting the productive insights offered by synchronic or spatial approaches to cultural texts.
Limited Engagement with Diversity in New Historicism:
Lehan critiques the “representation school” primarily based on examples like Walter Benn Michaels and Foucault, but this does not fully represent the variety of practices and innovations within the New Historicist movement.

Underestimation of Tropological Critique:
While he warns against reducing historical texts to tropes, some may argue that Lehan underestimates the critical power of tropological and rhetorical analysis to uncover ideology and contradiction in historical discourse.
Insufficient Consideration of Language and Power:
Lehan favors process over discourse and may downplay how language itself produces historical consciousness and is inseparable from power structures—as emphasized by Foucault and others.
Reassertion of Grand Narratives:
His insistence on historical continuity and developmental models can be critiqued for reasserting teleological or totalizing grand narratives, which postmodern and poststructuralist theorists deliberately resist.

Neglect of Marginalized Voices:
The article focuses heavily on canonical texts and dominant ideologies, with little engagement with how New Historicism has been applied to issues of race, gender, colonialism, and class from subaltern perspectives.

Representative Quotations from “The Theoretical Limits of the New Historicism” by Richard Lehan with Explanation

Quotation	Page	Explanation
“I could just as well have entitled it ‘The Consequences of the Synchronic—or the Dangers of Spatializing Time.'”	533	Lehan introduces his critique of New Historicism by suggesting that its focus on synchronic (static) time over diachronic (sequential) time distorts historical understanding, a central theme of his essay.
“Since the seventeenth century our ways of talking about history have come off of three dominant models.”	534	He outlines three historical paradigms—Enlightenment, Romantic, and Postmodern—to contextualize New Historicism within a broader evolution of historical thought, emphasizing its postmodern roots.
“Much of the new historicism assumes that history has no direction even as it takes the idea of direction as its object of attack.”	535	This highlights Lehan’s argument that New Historicism’s rejection of historical progression is itself ideological, contradicting its claim to neutrality.
“What I am suggesting is that the direction we believe time takes has a political quotient to it, even (perhaps especially) when such a belief is denied.”	535	Lehan asserts that denying historical direction (as New Historicism does) is a political act, embedding ideology in its methodology despite its claims otherwise.
“In denying history, we affirm it, because our denial can never be separated from a historical context.”	536	He argues that attempts to escape history (e.g., through synchronic analysis) are inherently historical, as they are shaped by the moment of their articulation.
“Foucault’s epistemes replace narrative line, become ‘diagnoses’ or contexts for historical discourse, and hence function much like Kuhn’s paradigms.”	539	Lehan critiques Foucault’s static epistemes, adopted by New Historicism, for lacking narrative continuity, reducing history to disconnected snapshots rather than a process.
“What Michaels does is to give us a postmodern Sister Carrie at the expense of the realistic/naturalistic text.”	542	Using Walter Benn Michaels’s reading of Dreiser’s novel, Lehan illustrates how New Historicism’s tropological focus distorts the text’s historical and naturalistic essence.
“The new historicism, firmly modeled on Foucault, is thus fraught with its own problematics.”	543	He questions the coherence and subjectivity of New Historicism’s methodology, suggesting it cannot escape the historical biases it seeks to avoid.
“Time is not language, and language is not time. We can speak about time in language, but this is not identical with the way we experience time.”	545	Lehan emphasizes the distinction between linguistic representation and lived temporal experience, arguing that New Historicism’s focus on language overlooks narrative time’s role in texts.
“Once the idea of literary periods gives way to the idea of historical process, we can then see the connection between such literary and cultural movements.”	552	He advocates for a process-oriented approach to history, linking literary forms (e.g., naturalism, modernism) to cultural shifts, countering New Historicism’s static view.

“New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters: Summary and Critique

“New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism and Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters first appeared in 2000 in the journal New Literary History.

Introduction: “New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters

“New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism and Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters first appeared in 2000 in the journal New Literary History. In this article, Pieters provides a critical intervention into New Historicism by situating it within the broader discourse of postmodern historiography. Drawing parallels between the literary-critical practices of Stephen Greenblatt and Louis Montrose and the historical theories of thinkers like Frank Ankersmit and Hayden White, Pieters argues that New Historicism should be viewed not as a departure from historicism, but as a postmodern evolution of it. He identifies two key currents within postmodern historiography—narrativism (epitomized by Foucault’s discursive archaeology) and heterology (inspired by de Certeau’s psychoanalytic and “other-oriented” historiography)—and shows how Greenblatt’s work partakes in both. Through his close analysis of Greenblatt’s strategic use of historical anecdotes, Pieters highlights how New Historicism vacillates between reconstructing historical discourse (narrativism) and revealing history’s unconscious repressions (heterology). Importantly, he critiques Greenblatt’s tendency to reject the label “historicism” altogether, arguing instead that New Historicism, in its nuanced rejection of naive realism and emphasis on contingency, is a “truer” form of historicism. The article is pivotal in literary theory as it provides a robust theoretical scaffolding for understanding the postmodern roots and epistemological stakes of New Historicist criticism.

Summary of “New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters

New Historicism as a Postmodern Historiographical Method

Pieters establishes that New Historicism shares theoretical ground with postmodern historiography, especially the narrativist historicism of Frank Ankersmit and the heterological theory of Michel de Certeau.

He takes Catherine Belsey’s remark that “at its most brilliant, its most elegant, New Historicism is characteristically postmodern” (p. 21) as a springboard for his analysis.

Rejection of Traditional Historicism

New historicists like Greenblatt and Montrose repudiate the objectivist and positivist assumptions of earlier historicists, who viewed history as a unified, knowable monolith.

Greenblatt critiques traditional historicism’s adherence to three flawed beliefs: deterministic views of history, value-neutrality, and a reverence for the past:

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

Terminological Confusion: Historicism vs. Historism

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

Narrativist Historicism: Constructing, Not Discovering, Coherence

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

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

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

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

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

Two Strands of Postmodern Historicism: Narrativism and Heterology

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

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

Greenblatt as Both Narrativist and Heterologist

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

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

The Anecdote: Bridge Between Narrative and the Real

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

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

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

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

Cultural Zones and Discursive Systems

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

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

Resonance and Wonder: Dual Function of Cultural Artifacts

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

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

The Risk of Regression: Historicism’s Return?

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

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

Conclusion: A Hybrid Heuristic Practice

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

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters

Concept	Definition / Description	Key References / Examples
New Historicism	A literary-critical method that emphasizes the historicity of texts and the textuality of history, rejecting traditional objectivist views of historical truth.	Associated with Stephen Greenblatt and Louis Montrose; rooted in poststructuralism and critical of older historicist methods (Pieters, p. 21–22).
Postmodern Historicism	A form of historiography that recognizes the contingency and constructed nature of historical narratives.	Coined by Frank Ankersmit and linked with Hayden White, it emphasizes the discursive (narrativist) or psychoanalytical (heterological) structuring of historical writing.
Narrativism	A historiographical approach that views history as narrative construction, not factual reproduction.	Draws from Ankersmit and Foucault; emphasizes coherence via discourse rather than “real” historical events (Pieters, p. 24–25).
Heterology	A method that focuses on the “other” of history—what is repressed, silenced, or excluded in historical narratives.	Based on Michel de Certeau’s psychoanalytic historiography; explores history’s absences through anecdote and textual margins (Pieters, p. 27–28).
Historicism vs. Historism	Distinction between speculative, teleological philosophies of history (Historicism) and empirical, document-based approaches (Historism).	Pieters critiques Greenblatt’s conflation of these; Ankersmit proposes using “Historism” for Ranke and “Historicism” for Hegel (Pieters, p. 23).
Double Transparency Postulate	The traditional view that texts transparently reflect historical reality and authorial intent.	Critiqued by postmodern historiographers; replaced with focus on discursive production (Ankersmit, in Pieters, p. 24).
Historical Idea (Historische Idee)	The coherent concept through which a historical period or entity is interpreted, giving it structure and meaning.	Originates in von Humboldt; reinterpreted by Ankersmit as a discursive projection rather than a real feature of the past (Pieters, p. 26).
Cultural Dispositif	A Foucauldian term for the complex network of texts, practices, and institutions that form a discursive system.	Greenblatt adopts this in Renaissance Self-Fashioning and Shakespearean Negotiations to analyze cultural production (Pieters, p. 30–31).
Social Energy	The symbolic and affective power that certain cultural objects or texts exert within a historical society.	Greenblatt uses this to explain shared emotional reactions to texts and practices (Pieters, p. 33).
Anecdotal Heuristics	The method of beginning analysis with historical anecdotes to reveal cultural mechanisms and contradictions.	Central to Greenblatt’s style; serves both narrativist (structural) and heterological (disruptive) functions (Pieters, p. 31–38).
Resonance and Wonder	Aesthetic and interpretive terms used to balance contextual understanding with textual uniqueness in literary analysis.	Pieters discusses Greenblatt’s essay “Resonance and Wonder” as exemplifying this dialectic (Pieters, p. 36–37).
Dialogue with the Dead	The idea that historical inquiry involves a metaphorical conversation between the historian and figures of the past.	Inspired by Machiavelli and developed by Greenblatt, highlighting the historian’s involvement in the construction of meaning (Pieters, p. 25, 34).
Effet de réel	A rhetorical device that produces a “reality effect” in narrative, simulating direct contact with historical reality.	Referenced via Barthes; used to critique the illusion that anecdotes give unmediated access to the past (Pieters, p. 38).

Contribution of “New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postmodern Historiography

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

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

2. New Historicism

Clarifies the theoretical ambiguity in Stephen Greenblatt’s rejection of the term “historicism”, revealing that Greenblatt’s approach aligns more with a revised, postmodern form of historicism rather than rejecting it outright (Pieters, p. 23).

Identifies dual methodologies within New Historicism:
- Narrativism (influenced by Foucault)
- Heterology (inspired by de Certeau)
  → This dual typology deepens understanding of New Historicist practice (Pieters, p. 27).

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

️ 3. Discourse Theory / Foucauldian Criticism

Shows how Foucauldian “archaeology” and “genealogy” inform New Historicist methods of cultural analysis (Pieters, p. 29–30).

Introduces the concept of “cultural dispositifs”, systems of discursive and institutional formation, rooted in Foucault’s theory, as central to Greenblatt’s method.

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

4. Psychoanalytic Historiography (via Michel de Certeau)

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

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

5. Narrative Theory / Theory of Representation

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

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

6. Cultural Materialism / Cultural Poetics

Deepens cultural materialist theory by detailing how social energy—as used by Greenblatt—circulates between cultural zones and texts, shaping meaning (Pieters, p. 33).

Emphasizes that literary texts are active agents in cultural discourse, not passive reflections of social reality.

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

7. Rhetoric and Aesthetics

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

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

8. Critical Hermeneutics

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

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

Examples of Critiques Through “New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters

Literary Work	Critique Approach	New Historicist Method Applied	Explanation (Based on Pieters)
William Shakespeare’s Othello	Narrativist + Heterological	Use of historical anecdotes to parallel themes of manipulation and identity construction	Greenblatt juxtaposes Othello with Peter Martyr’s De Orbe Novo to illustrate how both use “improvisation” to control others; this reflects early modern discourses of self and racialized otherness (Pieters, pp. 29–30).
William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice	Narrativist	Analysis of social zones (religion, law, commerce) and circulation of social energy	Greenblatt explores how discourses of economics and anti-Semitism intersect in Shylock’s character, reflecting Renaissance anxieties about outsiders within systems of power (Pieters, p. 32).
*Shakespeare’s Cross-Dressing Comedies (Twelfth Night, As You Like It)*	Narrativist	Mapping discursive formations around gender and identity	Using Jacques Duval’s medical treatise on hermaphroditism, Greenblatt analyzes gender fluidity and theatricality in these plays as cultural negotiations of Renaissance sexual anxieties (Pieters, p. 32).
Michel de Montaigne’s Travel Journal (as source) → *Shakespeare’s Comedies*	Heterological	Microstoria as site of cultural repression and estrangement	Greenblatt uses Montaigne’s account of gender ambiguity to uncover how suppressed social anxieties return in Shakespeare’s comedies; anecdotes act as echoes of the “repressed” (Pieters, pp. 33–34).

Criticism Against “New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overreliance on Poststructuralist Canon
Pieters’ reliance on Foucault, Certeau, and Ankersmit, while insightful, may limit alternative historicist models (e.g. Marxist materialism, feminist historiography), narrowing the theoretical diversity.

Potential Idealization of Anecdotal Heuristics
The trust placed in “thick description” and cultural micro-events risks romanticizing isolated fragments, while neglecting broader socio-economic structures or empirical history.
Methodological Vagueness of “Social Energy”
Pieters acknowledges Greenblatt’s own uncertainty in defining this concept:

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

Representative Quotations from “New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism And Heterology” by Jürgen Pieters with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation / Theoretical Relevance
1. “At its most brilliant, its most elegant, New Historicism is characteristically postmodern.”	Pieters underscores New Historicism’s alignment with postmodern historiography, highlighting its rejection of grand narratives and embrace of multiplicity, contingency, and irony.
2. “Greenblatt actually lumps together two distinct historiographical practices that are better kept apart.”	This critiques Greenblatt’s oversimplification of ‘historicism’, pushing for conceptual clarity between speculative philosophies of history (e.g., Hegel) and empiricist historiography (e.g., Ranke).
3. “Narrativists believe that the historian’s language does not reflect a coherence… but only gives coherence to the past.”	Reflects Frank Ankersmit’s narrativist view: history is not discovered but constructed through narrative forms, shaping New Historicism’s discursive approach to historical texts.
4. “Greenblatt proposes a fully dialogical practice.”	Describes New Historicism’s methodological departure from monological history by emphasizing dialogue—between texts, and between past and present.
5. “The mansion of postmodernist historicism contains many rooms.”	A metaphor used by Pieters to acknowledge the diversity within postmodern historical practices—specifically distinguishing between narrativism (Foucault) and heterology (de Certeau).
6. “The anecdote both serves as the central locus of a culture’s dispersive nature and as the site where history’s other can be brought to the fore.”	Pieters defines the anecdote as a hybrid tool in New Historicism—both structuring historical knowledge and revealing the margins of that knowledge.
7. “What binds together cultural practices… is the notion of social energy.”	Refers to Greenblatt’s concept of ‘social energy’, which explains how cultural forms acquire shared meaning and affect across social zones.
8. “Greenblatt wants the historian to be true to his calling and become a ‘conjurer’ (un illusioniste) who presents the past as if it were real.”	Reveals Greenblatt’s theatrical vision of history—less about facts, more about performance and resonance, stressing the constructed nature of ‘historical reality’.
9. “New Historicism aims to rescue historicism from the metaphysical realism which marred its older versions.”	Pieters defends New Historicism as a revitalization, not a rejection, of historicist traditions—only without naive assumptions of objectivity.
10. “It is the function of the new historicism continually to renew the marvelous at the heart of the resonant.”	Captures the dual function of New Historicist reading: historical contextualization (‘resonance’) and aesthetic uniqueness (‘wonder’).

“Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead: Summary and Critique

“Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead first appeared in Critical Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, in the early 1990s.

Introduction: “Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead

“Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead first appeared in Critical Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, in the early 1990s. In this work, Snead critiques postmodernist literary theory and its failure to engage with issues of race, particularly in relation to Blackness. He argues that poststructuralist theorists such as Derrida, Barthes, and DeMan, despite their claims of dismantling hierarchies and binaries, perpetuate an exclusionary Eurocentrism that ignores non-Western contributions to intellectual and literary traditions. Snead highlights the paradox wherein postmodernist thought, while deconstructing traditional power structures, continues to operate within a framework that marginalizes Black voices, treating them as either absent or emblematic of otherness without substantive engagement. He extends this critique to postmodernist literature, where Black characters are often depicted as symbolic rather than fully realized individuals. Through detailed analysis, Snead demonstrates how even supposedly progressive literary and theoretical movements can replicate racist exclusions. His work remains crucial in literary studies, compelling scholars to interrogate the racial blind spots within critical theory and the continued dominance of whiteness in intellectual discourse.

Summary of “Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead

Repression of Race in Literary Criticism
- Snead critiques the academic field of literary criticism for its historical tendency to suppress discussions of race. He describes a “habit of repression, a structure of avoidance” (Snead, p. 32) regarding Blackness in literary discourse.

The Myth of Objectivity in New Criticism
- Initially, Snead believed in the New Critical approach, which emphasized textual autonomy and universal laws, assuming that “blackness, racism, and discrimination took second place” to literary excellence (Snead, p. 32). However, he later realized that this framework implicitly upheld racial biases.
Poststructuralism’s False Promise of Liberation
- Snead initially embraced poststructuralism and deconstruction for their “claims of transforming rigid and habitual systems of value and order in society” (Snead, p. 33). However, he found that poststructuralist theorists such as Derrida and Barthes replicated the same Eurocentric biases, effectively ignoring Black and non-Western intellectual traditions.
Racism in Poststructuralist Theory
- Despite its claims of dismantling hierarchies, poststructuralism “was anything but a theoretical bridge between text and society” (Snead, p. 33). The works of prominent figures such as Barthes, Derrida, and DeMan systematically omitted racial considerations while reinforcing inherited structures of exclusion.

Eurocentric Canon and the Exclusion of Black Voices
- Snead argues that postmodernist theory re-canonizes Western literary traditions, making “reference-points and acknowledged sources of major postmodernists… as white and as Euro-centric as anything offered under the New Criticism” (Snead, p. 33).
Symbolic but Shallow Black Characters in Postmodern Literature
- Black characters in postmodernist literature are often emblematic rather than fully realized figures. Snead critiques works like Ragtime by E.L. Doctorow, where “Coalhouse Walker… is never fully imagined” but instead serves as a literary symbol rather than a character with depth (Snead, p. 34). Similarly, in John Barth’s The End of the Road, the Black character functions as a “witch doctor caricature” (Snead, p. 34).
Historical and Cultural Biases in Western Intellectual Traditions
- Western thought, from Hegel to Saussure, often positions non-Western knowledge systems as inferior. Snead cites Charles Moraz, who dismissed the idea that “Newtonian or Leibnizian invention could have happened in India or with the Indians in America” (Snead, p. 35), revealing an entrenched Eurocentric view of intellectual history.

The Absence of Race in Poststructuralist Discourse
- Snead points out that poststructuralism’s core concern with language and textual analysis results in a “repression of any mention of race” (Snead, p. 37). This avoidance does not eliminate racial bias but instead “tends to re-introduce the repressed term (‘non-Western’) in a dichotomy where it is still placed below the ‘Western’” (Snead, p. 37).
Poststructuralism’s Contradictory Relationship with Non-Western Thought
- Snead identifies the irony in poststructuralist theories of différance, which emphasize deferred meaning. He argues that this concept parallels African rhythms and oral traditions: “Differance is merely another way of saying ‘suspended beats’” (Snead, p. 38). Yet, theorists like Derrida fail to acknowledge such connections, reinforcing the exclusion of Black intellectual traditions.
Conclusion: The Black as a ‘Signifying Absence’
- Snead concludes that postmodernist theory treats Blackness as a “signifying absence, the signifying other” (Snead, p. 39), continuing a long tradition of Eurocentric discourse that either devalues or ignores non-Western thought.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference from Snead’s Text
Repression and Avoidance	The systematic exclusion of racial discourse in literary theory, especially in postmodernist thought.	“A habit of repression, a structure of avoidance so imbedded in its traditional ways of thinking” (Snead, p. 32).
New Criticism’s Objectivity Myth	The idea that literary criticism is value-free, focusing only on textual analysis while ignoring race, gender, and class.	“For a fairly brief interval in my life, I… was convinced of the value-free status of ‘close reading’” (Snead, p. 32).
Poststructuralist Anti-Hierarchical Claims	Poststructuralism claims to break down hierarchical structures but paradoxically reaffirms Eurocentric values.	“Much, if not most deconstructionist theory was in fact ostensibly non-racial, but definably racist itself” (Snead, p. 33).
Eurocentrism in Postmodernism	The continued dominance of white European perspectives in literary and theoretical discourse.	“The reference-points and acknowledged sources of major postmodernists were as white and as Eurocentric as anything offered under the New Criticism” (Snead, p. 33).
Symbolic Representation of Blackness	Black characters in postmodernist literature often serve as symbols rather than fully developed individuals.	“Blacks still ‘represent’ otherness and/or dark areas of the white mind” (Snead, p. 34).
Deconstruction and Race	Derrida’s theory of deconstruction, while intended to dismantle hierarchical binaries, fails to engage with racial discourse.	“Poststructuralism’s absolute exclusion of the non-Western… reveals the trace of that non-Western genesis” (Snead, p. 37).
Différance and African Rhythms	The idea of différance (differing and deferring meaning) parallels African rhythm and oral traditions, but poststructuralists ignore this connection.	“Differance is merely another way of saying ‘suspended beats’” (Snead, p. 38).
Logocentrism and Phonocentrism	The prioritization of Western written and spoken discourse over other cultural forms of knowledge.	“That logocentrism which is also a phonocentrism” (Snead, p. 38).
Signifying Absence	The way Blackness is simultaneously referenced and erased in postmodernist theory.	“The black is a signifying absence, the signifying other, in the text of postmodernism” (Snead, p. 39).

Contribution of “Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

Critique of Deconstruction’s Supposed Universality
- Snead argues that despite claiming to dismantle hierarchies, poststructuralism retains a Eurocentric framework that excludes Black and non-Western perspectives.
- “Much, if not most deconstructionist theory was in fact ostensibly non-racial, but definably racist itself… in the same way as its predecessors had been” (Snead, p. 33).
Challenges Derrida’s Notion of Différance
- Snead identifies parallels between différance and African rhythmic structures, questioning why poststructuralists exclude non-Western traditions.
- “Differance is merely another way of saying ‘suspended beats’” (Snead, p. 38).
Calls Out the Racism of ‘Benign Neglect’
- While classical Western thinkers engaged with race (even in racist ways), poststructuralists often ignore it entirely, reinforcing exclusion.
- “They may have arrived at racist definitions of blackness, too, but at least they did not benignly neglect the issue of race altogether” (Snead, p. 38).

2. New Criticism and Formalism

Exposes the Myth of Literary Objectivity
- Snead critiques New Criticism’s claim of “value-free” close reading, showing how it perpetuates racial exclusions.
- “For a fairly brief interval in my life, I… was convinced of the value-free status of ‘close reading’” (Snead, p. 32).
Challenges the Canon’s Supposed Neutrality
- He argues that both New Criticism and poststructuralism re-canonize Western thinkers while erasing non-Western perspectives.
- “The reference-points and acknowledged sources of major postmodernists were as white and as Eurocentric as anything offered under the New Criticism” (Snead, p. 33).

3. Postcolonial Theory

Critique of Eurocentric Universalism
- Snead highlights how Western theory positions itself as universal while implicitly excluding Black and non-European perspectives.
- “The route whereby ‘human’ is taken to mean ‘white European’ is apparent wherever scholars, philosophers, and critics aim for universals” (Snead, p. 36).

Challenges the Absence of Third-World Epistemologies
- He criticizes postmodernist thinkers for failing to engage with intellectual traditions outside the West.
- “Poststructuralism’s absolute exclusion of the non-Western… reveals the trace of that non-Western genesis” (Snead, p. 37).

4. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

Identifies Racism in Theoretical Structures
- Snead exposes how theoretical frameworks that claim neutrality still reinforce racial exclusions.
- “Yet here I am, accusing ‘postmodernist theory and literature’ of racism” (Snead, p. 33).
Critique of ‘Colorblind’ Intellectualism
- He argues that ignoring race does not make a discipline non-racist but instead perpetuates systemic racial erasure.
- “The super-intensive grappling with issues of language… takes the spotlight away from the social referent” (Snead, p. 39).

5. Narrative Theory and Representation Studies

Critique of Black Representation in Postmodern Fiction
- Snead examines how postmodernist literature continues to use Black characters as shallow symbols rather than as fully realized figures.
- “Blacks still ‘represent’ otherness and/or dark areas of the white mind” (Snead, p. 34).
Challenges the Treatment of Blackness as Mere Allegory
- He critiques how even celebrated postmodernist authors, such as Pynchon and Barth, reduce Black figures to literary devices.
- “Coalhouse Walker… is never fully imagined, but… is simply used as a black double for Heinrich von Kleist’s nineteenth-century rebel” (Snead, p. 34).

6. Canon Formation and Cultural Criticism

Exposes the Whitewashing of Literary and Philosophical Traditions
- Snead points out that Western thinkers who influence poststructuralism (Hegel, Freud, Derrida) engage in racial exclusion, either explicitly or through omission.
- “Derrida’s own references… have already described analogous oppositions in terms of ‘non-Western’ versus ‘Western,’ ‘primitive’ versus ‘civilized’ thinking” (Snead, p. 38).

Demands a Rethinking of Literary Meritocracy
- He critiques the assumption that intellectual excellence in literary theory is race-neutral when it is actually shaped by Eurocentric biases.
- “Surely hiring, promotion, publication, and acclaim would follow, based merely on the integrity of the work. In sharp distinction… academia seemed a virtual refuge of meritocracy” (Snead, p. 32).

Examples of Critiques Through “Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead

Literary Work & Author	Snead’s Critique	Reference from the Article
*E.L. Doctorow – Ragtime* (1974)**	The Black character Coalhouse Walker is not fully developed but is used as a symbolic figure rather than a complex individual.	“Coalhouse Walker, a potentially interesting figure in Ragtime, is never fully imagined, but… is simply used as a black double for Heinrich von Kleist’s nineteenth-century rebel, Michael Kohlhaas” (Snead, p. 34).
*Peter Handke – Short Letter, Long Farewell* (1972)**	The Black elevator operator is a racial stereotype, reflecting the racist imagery common in Hollywood films.	“Peter Handke’s ‘old Negro [elevator] operator’ in Short Letter, Long Farewell differs not at all from racist Hollywood depictions of the same” (Snead, p. 34).
*John Barth – The End of the Road* (1958)**	The character “the Doctor” is portrayed through the racist “witch doctor” trope, reinforcing harmful stereotypes.	“The black character called ‘the Doctor’ in The End of the Road, given his malevolent influence on the main character, is simply an updated ‘witch doctor’ caricature” (Snead, p. 34).
*Thomas Pynchon – Gravity’s Rainbow* (1973)**	While Pynchon’s Black characters are more memorable, they are still primarily used to signify depravity and decadence rather than given narrative depth.	“Thomas Pynchon’s blacks are at least memorable, though often used to signify depravity and decadence” (Snead, p. 34).

Criticism Against “Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead

1. Overgeneralization of Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

Critics argue that Snead paints poststructuralist theorists like Derrida and Barthes with a broad brush, failing to acknowledge the nuances in their work.
Some scholars note that Derrida, for instance, does engage with non-Western concepts, albeit minimally. His essay “White Mythology” acknowledges the Eurocentrism embedded in Western philosophy.

Snead himself admits that “Of all Derrida’s major essays and readings, only the one entitled ‘La Mythologie Blanche’ even comments upon the implications of its title, and of its own whiteness” (Snead, p. 37).

2. Lack of Engagement with Non-Western Critical Traditions

While Snead critiques the exclusion of Black and non-Western thought, he does not provide substantive engagement with alternative literary or theoretical frameworks from these traditions.

His argument remains centered on critiquing Eurocentric thinkers without offering a clear model for incorporating non-Western intellectual traditions into postmodernist theory.
Some critics argue that Snead’s work, despite its important observations, remains embedded in a Western academic framework rather than actively engaging with alternative epistemologies.

3. Dismissal of Postmodernist Literature’s Self-Critique

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

4. Limited Consideration of Marxist and Materialist Critiques of Race

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

5. Insufficient Discussion of Black and Postcolonial Theorists

Snead critiques the absence of race in postmodernist thought but does not extensively engage with Black or postcolonial theorists who have addressed these issues.
For instance, scholars like Frantz Fanon, Aimé Césaire, and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o had already critiqued the Eurocentrism of Western intellectual traditions.

Some critics argue that Snead could have strengthened his critique by aligning more explicitly with Afrocentric or postcolonial theoretical traditions rather than focusing mainly on deconstructing Western thinkers.

6. Does Not Provide a Clear Alternative to Postmodernist Theory

While Snead effectively critiques the limitations of postmodernist and deconstructionist approaches to race, he does not propose a systematic alternative for incorporating racial and non-Western perspectives into literary theory.

Critics argue that the essay raises important questions but stops short of offering concrete solutions for how literary theory should evolve to address race more fully.

Representative Quotations from “Racist Traces in Postmodernist Theory and Literature” by James Snead with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“A habit of repression, a structure of avoidance so imbedded in its traditional ways of thinking…” (Snead, p. 32)	Snead critiques how literary studies have historically suppressed discussions of race, reflecting a broader systemic exclusion of Blackness.
“Poststructuralism’s absolute exclusion of the non-Western… reveals the trace of that non-Western genesis.” (Snead, p. 37)	He argues that while poststructuralism claims to be revolutionary, it continues to erase non-Western intellectual traditions, reinforcing Eurocentrism.
“Much, if not most deconstructionist theory was in fact ostensibly non-racial, but definably racist itself.” (Snead, p. 33)	Snead calls out deconstruction for failing to engage with racial discourse, arguing that its supposed neutrality masks racial exclusion.
“The reference-points and acknowledged sources of major postmodernists were as white and as Euro-centric as anything offered under the New Criticism.” (Snead, p. 33)	He critiques how postmodernist theorists re-canonize European traditions while ignoring or marginalizing non-Western thought.
“Blacks still ‘represent’ otherness and/or dark areas of the white mind.” (Snead, p. 34)	Snead highlights how postmodern literature continues to depict Blackness as symbolic rather than allowing for complex, fully developed Black characters.
“The black is a signifying absence, the signifying other, in the text of postmodernism.” (Snead, p. 39)	He argues that Blackness in postmodernist theory is both present and erased, existing only in the margins as an absent referent.
“Differance is merely another way of saying ‘suspended beats’.” (Snead, p. 38)	Snead critiques Derrida’s différance by drawing a connection between its concept of deferral and African rhythmic structures, which poststructuralists fail to acknowledge.
“Surely hiring, promotion, publication, and acclaim would follow, based merely on the integrity of the work.” (Snead, p. 32)	He critiques the myth of literary meritocracy, showing how systemic racism affects academic recognition.
*“Coalhouse Walker, a potentially interesting figure in Ragtime, is never fully imagined…”* (Snead, p. 34)	He criticizes E.L. Doctorow’s novel for using a Black character as a mere symbol rather than a fully realized individual.
“We all perhaps reveal more by the words we avoid than by the words that we use.” (Snead, p. 39)	Borrowing from Barthes and Freud, Snead argues that postmodernist theorists’ silence on race is itself a revealing act of exclusion.

“Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

“Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic first appeared in 2001 as part of a growing body of interdisciplinary literature that sought to reframe the discussion of race, law, and power in the United States. Published by NYU Press and shaped by decades of legal scholarship and activism, this foundational text introduced readers to the origins, principles, and broader implications of Critical Race Theory (CRT). The book builds upon earlier movements such as civil rights, critical legal studies, and radical feminism, while offering an incisive critique of traditional liberal approaches to race and equality. It asserts that racism is not an anomaly but a normal feature of American society, embedded deeply within its structures and institutions. Delgado and Stefancic underscore key CRT concepts like intersectionality, social construction of race, differential racialization, and the “voice of color” thesis, emphasizing that race is not biologically determined but socially constructed and manipulated to serve dominant interests. Particularly influential in literary theory and cultural studies, CRT’s emphasis on narrative, storytelling, and lived experience challenges canonical modes of representation and legitimizes voices traditionally excluded from discourse. This work’s lasting importance lies in its interdisciplinary reach, serving as a cornerstone for subsequent explorations into race, identity, law, and the power of narrative in shaping collective understanding.

Summary of “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

1. Racism as Ordinary, Not Aberrational

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

2. Interest Convergence & Material Determinism

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

3. Race as a Social Construct

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

4. Microaggressions and Daily Racism

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

5. Intersectionality and Anti-Essentialism

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

6. The Unique Voice of Color

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

7. Origins in Legal Scholarship and Civil Rights Disillusionment

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

8. Activist Nature and Transformation

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

9. Relationship to Other Movements

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

10. Evolving Spin-Off Movements

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

11. Structural Critique of Liberalism

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

12. Racialization Over Time

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

13. Evidence of Persistent Racism

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

14. Importance of Narrative and Storytelling

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

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Quotation (Source)
Microaggression	Subtle, often unintentional acts of racism that occur in everyday interactions.	“…sudden, stunning, or dispiriting transactions that mar the days of women and folks of color” (p. 1).
Ordinariness of Racism	Racism is normal and embedded in everyday life, not an exception.	“Racism is ordinary, not aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business” (p. 3).
Interest Convergence	Racial progress occurs only when it aligns with the interests of the white majority.	“Racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working-class people (psychically)” (p. 3).
Social Construction of Race	Race is a socially created category without biological basis, shaped by social and political forces.	“Race and races are products of social thought and relations… not objective, inherent, or fixed” (p. 3).
Differential Racialization	The dominant society racializes different minority groups in different ways depending on historical and economic needs.	“Dominant society racializes different minority groups at different times…” (p. 3).
Intersectionality	People possess multiple, overlapping identities (e.g., race, gender, class) that affect their experiences of oppression and privilege.	“No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity” (p. 4).
Anti-Essentialism	Rejects the idea that all members of a racial or social group share the same experience or perspective.	“Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities…” (p. 4).
Voice of Color Thesis	People of color possess unique perspectives on race and law based on their lived experiences.	“Minority status… brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism” (p. 4).
Legal Indeterminacy	There is no single “correct” legal outcome in many cases; results can vary depending on interpretation.	“[Legal cases]… can be decided either way… by emphasizing one line of authority over another” (p. 2).
Revisionist History	Re-examining and challenging traditional historical narratives, especially those that portray progress as linear or neutral.	Implied through critique of “triumphalist history” and reinterpretation of civil rights law (p. 2).
Critical White Studies	Examines whiteness as a racial category and explores white privilege and the social construction of white identity.	“Recently scholars… are examining whites as a group… white privilege…” (p. 5).
Storytelling/Counterstory	The use of personal narratives to challenge dominant legal and cultural discourses that ignore or marginalize minority experiences.	“Urges black and brown writers to recount their experiences… assess law’s master narratives” (p. 4).
Material Determinism	Economic interests play a central role in shaping racial dynamics and preserving systemic racism.	“Racism advances the interests… materially” (p. 3).
Structural Determinism	Social and legal structures are inherently biased in favor of dominant groups and resistant to change.	Mentioned in book organization: “Chapter 2 presents… structural determinism” (p. 5).

Contribution of “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Narrative Theory / Legal Storytelling

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

2. Post-Structuralism / Deconstruction

Contribution: CRT questions the neutrality of language, law, and knowledge, and draws from theorists like Jacques Derrida.
Significance in Literary Theory: It supports the idea that texts (including laws and histories) are not objective, aligning with post-structuralist views that meaning is unstable and power-laden.

Reference: “CRT… questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including… Enlightenment rationalism” (p. 2).

3. Critical Legal Studies & Literary Indeterminacy

Contribution: Embraces legal indeterminacy—that legal texts can be interpreted multiple ways.

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

4. Intersectionality and Identity Theory

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

5. Postcolonial and Cultural Studies

Contribution: CRT critiques dominant culture’s portrayal of race and racialized bodies through differential racialization and stereotyping.
Significance in Literary Theory: Aligns with postcolonial theory’s focus on representation, colonial discourse, and racial hierarchies in literature.

Reference: “Society racializes different minority groups at different times… Popular images and stereotypes… shift over time” (p. 3).

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

Contribution: CRT’s voice-of-color thesis asserts that marginalized readers bring unique insights to interpreting texts.

Significance in Literary Theory: Resonates with reader-response theory and theories of positional reading, which value the reader’s social and racial position.
Reference: “Minority status… brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism” (p. 4).

7. Structuralism and Ideology Critique

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

8. Revisionist Historiography / Metahistory

Contribution: CRT offers revisionist interpretations of history, challenging “triumphalist” narratives.
Significance in Literary Theory: This aligns with new historicism and metahistorical criticism, which scrutinize how history is written and for whom.

Reference: “Favorable precedent… tends to deteriorate over time, cut back by narrow… interpretation” (p. 2).

9. Critical Whiteness Studies

Contribution: CRT explores whiteness as a constructed racial identity and locus of power.

Significance in Literary Theory: Informs critical whiteness theory in literature, examining how whiteness is rendered invisible or normative in texts.
Reference: “Critical white studies addresses… whether such a thing as white privilege exists” (p. 5).

10. Activist Criticism / Transformative Praxis

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

Examples of Critiques Through “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

Literary Work	CRT Lens Applied	Example of Critique Using CRT Concepts	Relevant CRT Concept
*To Kill a Mockingbird* by Harper Lee	Challenges of liberal legalism and the “white savior” narrative	The novel centers on a white lawyer defending a Black man, yet fails to fully center Black voices or experiences. CRT would critique its reliance on white heroism and its limited challenge to systemic injustice.	Critique of Liberalism, Voice-of-Color Thesis
*The Great Gatsby* by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Racial anxieties and the construction of whiteness	Tom Buchanan’s remarks about “The Rise of the Colored Empires” reveal anxieties about white decline. CRT would expose the racial undertones of class preservation and how race undergirds Gatsby’s social world.	Critical Whiteness Studies, Social Construction of Race
*Heart of Darkness* by Joseph Conrad	Colonial narratives and dehumanization of Blackness	African characters are voiceless and symbolic rather than human. CRT would critique how the text perpetuates colonial hierarchies by presenting Africa as a backdrop for white moral reflection.	Dehumanization, Racialization, Revisionist History
*Beloved* by Toni Morrison	Counter-narrative and reclaiming voice through historical trauma	Morrison provides a powerful voice of color in narrating the trauma of slavery. CRT would highlight how Beloved revises historical silences, asserting a Black female perspective often erased from official histories.	Voice-of-Color Thesis, Intersectionality, Storytelling

How CRT Concepts Apply:

Voice-of-Color Thesis: Minoritized writers can articulate experiences and insights inaccessible to white counterparts (Delgado & Stefancic, 2006, p. 4).
Critique of Liberalism: Legal equality without structural reform often upholds racial hierarchies (p. 2).
Social Construction of Race: Race is a fluid, invented concept used for power and control (p. 3).

Critical Whiteness Studies: Whiteness operates as invisible dominance in literature and culture (p. 5).

Criticism Against “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

1. Accusation of Pessimism

Critics argue CRT is too pessimistic about the permanence of racism in society.

Response in the text: Delgado and Stefancic counter by comparing CRT to medicine: “Is medicine pessimistic because it focuses on diseases and traumas?” (p. 6).

2. Rejection of Enlightenment Principles

CRT is critiqued for questioning equality theory, rationalism, and neutral legal principles, which are core to Western liberal thought.

Text states: CRT “questions the very foundations of the liberal order” (p. 2), which some view as radical and destabilizing.

3. Subjectivity over Objectivity

Critics claim CRT relies too heavily on personal narratives and subjective experiences (e.g., legal storytelling), which weakens scholarly neutrality.

CRT, however, argues that counterstories challenge dominant narratives and are essential for revealing hidden structures of racism (p. 4).

4. Undermining Colorblindness

Some argue CRT rejects the ideal of colorblindness, which they see as crucial for achieving a just society.

CRT responds that colorblindness ignores real power dynamics and only addresses overt racism, not structural inequality (p. 3).

5. Encouragement of Identity Politics

CRT is accused of promoting identity-based thinking, potentially leading to division rather than unity.

Delgado and Stefancic highlight that intersectionality and anti-essentialism actually deepen understanding of complex social identities (p. 4).

6. Ideological Bias

Some critics (especially from the political Right) argue CRT reflects a left-wing ideological agenda and is activist rather than analytical.

CRT embraces this, asserting that theory must also aim to transform society, not just interpret it (p. 2).

7. Relativism and Legal Indeterminacy

The concept of legal indeterminacy—that legal outcomes can be shaped by power and interpretation—is seen as threatening to legal consistency.

CRT uses this to critique how legal systems serve dominant interests, especially in civil rights (p. 2).

8. Essentialism of the “Voice of Color”

Tension exists within CRT itself between anti-essentialism and the voice-of-color thesis.

Critics argue it risks reducing individuals to their racial identities, though CRT acknowledges this tension (p. 4).

9. Perceived Lack of Empirical Evidence

Detractors argue CRT relies more on anecdotal experience than empirical, data-driven analysis.

CRT counters that many forms of racism are difficult to quantify and often masked by institutional practices (p. 5).

Representative Quotations from “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business…” (p. 3)	This foundational CRT idea challenges the myth that racism is an exception; it is routine and systemic in everyday life and institutions.
2. “Microaggressions… mar the days of women and folks of color” (p. 1)	Highlights how small, often unintentional acts of exclusion or hostility accumulate to reinforce racial hierarchies.
3. “Critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order…” (p. 2)	CRT challenges supposedly ‘neutral’ concepts like equality, legal objectivity, and Enlightenment rationalism, asserting they often mask systemic inequality.
4. “The movement… contains an activist dimension… to change [our social situation]” (p. 2)	CRT is not merely an academic theory; it seeks to transform society by addressing racial injustices actively.
5. “Race and races are products of social thought and relations…” (p. 3)	Rejects the notion that race is biologically real; instead, it’s a social construct used for power and classification.
6. “Minority status… brings with it a presumed competence to speak about race and racism” (p. 4)	The voice-of-color thesis argues that people of color can offer insights into racial issues that white people, due to lack of experience, may not fully grasp.
7. “No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity” (p. 4)	Emphasizes intersectionality, the idea that identity is multi-layered (e.g., race, gender, class) and cannot be understood through a single lens.
8. “Society racializes different minority groups at different times…” (p. 3)	Refers to differential racialization: society assigns shifting stereotypes and values to racial groups based on political/economic needs (e.g., labor, war).
9. “From conventional civil rights thought, the movement took… the insistence that legal and social theory have practical consequences” (p. 2)	CRT values theory that engages with real-world injustice, rejecting abstract frameworks that don’t address lived experiences.
10. “Consider… that Brown v. Board… may have resulted more from the self-interest of elite whites than a desire to help blacks” (p. 3)	Reflects interest convergence theory: racial progress often occurs only when it benefits white interests. It critiques liberal narratives that overemphasize altruism in civil rights victories.