Introduction: “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook
“The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook, first appeared in the journal New Literary History, explores the critical evolution of literary theory, particularly focusing on the contentious relationship between texts and their contexts. Colebrook examines how deconstruction—initially criticized for being overly abstract—challenges the notion of anchoring texts to static historical or cultural milieus. She argues that contemporary contexts of reading often render texts enigmatic or detached from their original conditions of meaning. This essay critiques recent “after theory” movements, such as literary Darwinism, for overly simplifying texts as products of biological or historical imperatives, thus neglecting the inherent multiplicity and decontextualizing forces of textuality. Colebrook’s work is pivotal in contemporary literary theory, as it reaffirms the necessity of theoretical critique in a world where archival and interpretive contexts are increasingly fragmented and unstable.
Summary of “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook
- Critique of Theory and Contextualism
- Literary theory, particularly deconstruction, has been criticized for its perceived detachment from historical and cultural contexts (“Theory was deemed to be irresponsibly abstract or formalist in its detachment of the text from context”, Colebrook, p. 702).
- Scholars like John Searle and M. H. Abrams argued that theory undermined the determinacy of meaning by divorcing texts from their contexts (“With philosophers such as John Searle correcting literary theorists for thinking that there might be something like ‘meaning’ that could be found outside everyday usage”, Colebrook, p. 702).
- Necessity of Theory in Modern Contexts
- Colebrook argues that theory is increasingly relevant today as texts often lack clear historical or cultural grounding in contemporary readings (“We are now facing a world in which there may well be an archive without any possibility of retrieving sense”, Colebrook, p. 703).
- She suggests that deconstruction enables a profound understanding of the decontextualization of texts, rather than simply rejecting historical or political grounding (“Theory is necessary in today’s context… because we are now facing a world in which there may well be an archive without any possibility of retrieving sense”, Colebrook, p. 703).
- Theory’s Role in Understanding Textuality
- Deconstruction challenges the idea that texts can be fully contained within fixed contexts, emphasizing the dynamic and generative nature of textuality (“A text cannot be contained within some context of safe, historical, and guaranteed astute reading”, Colebrook, p. 702).
- Criticism of Anti-Theory Movements
- Colebrook critiques movements like literary Darwinism that attempt to ground texts in life or evolutionary frameworks, as they overlook the multiplicity of meanings and the destabilizing potential of texts (“The most recent attacks on ‘theory’… argue that it is misguided to see texts as anything other than expressions of a purposive life”, Colebrook, p. 709).
- Multiplicity and Historicity of Contexts
- She emphasizes that contexts themselves are complex and evolving, and any attempt to return to a “pure” or “original” context oversimplifies the interpretive process (“There is no such thing as an original context”, Colebrook, p. 712).
- Colebrook asserts that deconstruction reveals the paradox that contexts are both necessary for meaning and inherently unstable (“The very concept of context belies the force of concepts, for concepts cannot be exhausted by the context from which they emerge”, Colebrook, p. 716).
- Intersection of Text, Concept, and Life
- Drawing on Derrida, Deleuze, and Guattari, Colebrook argues that texts, concepts, and contexts are deeply interconnected and inseparable from the broader forces of life and thought (“Concepts open and destroy contexts, enabling modes of thought, problem posing, and orientation”, Colebrook, p. 716).
- Implications for Reading and Interpretation
- Colebrook contends that reading is a creative act that generates new contexts, rather than restoring texts to their “original” settings (“We read precisely because there is no such thing as context… each text in every reading demands a created context”, Colebrook, p. 713).
- This understanding challenges conventional approaches to historicism and promotes a more dynamic engagement with texts and their meanings.
- The Future of Theory and Context
- Colebrook concludes that theory is essential for navigating a world where the traditional contexts of texts are decaying or disappearing (“Theory… is exactly what is required when the very contexts that have enabled a certain archive to be read can neither be guaranteed to survive nor justified”, Colebrook, p. 703).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Explanation | Reference |
| Context | The historical, cultural, or social environment in which a text is produced or interpreted. | “A text cannot be contained within some context of safe, historical, and guaranteed astute reading” (p. 702). |
| Deconstruction | A theoretical approach that questions the relationship between text, meaning, and context, focusing on instability. | “Theory assumes that a text is something that may or may not be related to intention” (p. 703). |
| Radical Decontextualization | The idea that texts can exist without fixed or original contexts, making their meanings enigmatic. | “There is no such thing as an original context” (p. 712). |
| Multiplicity of Meaning | The concept that texts allow for multiple interpretations, not confined by a single historical or cultural milieu. | “Theory… argues for multiple readings” (p. 702). |
| Historicity | The understanding that meaning emerges through historical processes and contexts, yet these are inherently unstable. | “Historicity… posits a horizon of humanity” (p. 717). |
| Materiality of Texts | The notion that the physical form of texts influences their interpretation but cannot limit their meaning. | “The text is a singular physical object that is nothing more than itself” (p. 707). |
| Concept (Deleuze and Guattari) | Concepts are intensive, generative, and not reducible to fixed meanings or historical circumstances. | “Concepts open and destroy contexts” (p. 716). |
| Mal d’archive (Archive Fever) | Derrida’s term for the paradoxical relationship between preserving texts and their inevitable decontextualization. | “The very mark or trace… always and already tears any closed context from itself” (p. 706). |
| Stratigraphic Reading | An approach that examines how texts create and transform contexts over time. | “Texts do not ‘have’ contexts but nevertheless require some ideal ‘missing’ people” (p. 703). |
| Posthumanism | A perspective that considers texts and archives beyond human-centered contexts and interpretations. | “Imagine the archives of human writing continuing to exist in radically inhuman contexts” (p. 703). |
| Literary Darwinism | A critical approach that grounds texts in evolutionary and biological frameworks. | “The context of evolving life… must guide reading” (p. 709). |
| Repeatability of Sense | The idea that texts must be intelligible to readers across different contexts and times. | “A text can only be read… if it is readable for another” (p. 707). |
| Deterritorialization | Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of how texts disrupt fixed meanings and extend beyond their immediate contexts. | “Texts are necessarily deterritorializing” (p. 707). |
| Interpretosis | A critique of overemphasizing interpretation, assuming texts are always mediated through human signifying systems. | “The logic of the signifier leads to ‘interpretosis’” (p. 717). |
| Anarchic Historicity | The notion that history and meaning are open-ended, resisting closure and fixed narratives. | “Anarchic genesis that cannot be read as a history of self-creation” (p. 717). |
Contribution of “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook to Literary Theory/Theories
| Literary Theory | Contribution of the Essay | Reference |
| Deconstruction | Challenges criticisms of deconstruction by emphasizing its role in addressing the instability of meaning and context. | “Theory… argues for multiple readings, not because it abandons context but because it confronts its instability” (p. 702). |
| New Historicism | Critiques simplistic historical contextualization, promoting a more nuanced and fragmented view of historical influence. | “Contexts are multiple and complex—no longer something like a Weltanschauung or unified lived background” (p. 708). |
| Posthumanism | Extends literary theory to consider texts in radically inhuman contexts, beyond human-centered historical frameworks. | “We are now facing a world… where archives may exist without the possibility of retrieving sense” (p. 703). |
| Literary Materialism | Highlights the physicality and materiality of texts while asserting their capacity to transcend immediate historical contexts. | “The material object of the text is a split matter… singular yet open to abstract readings” (p. 707). |
| Literary Darwinism | Critiques Literary Darwinism’s reductionist approach that anchors texts solely in evolutionary or biological imperatives. | “Texts should not simply be expressions of purposive life… such grounding weakens the force of textual multiplicity” (p. 709). |
| Reader-Response Theory | Emphasizes the role of readers in creating contexts for texts, challenging the notion of fixed or “original” interpretations. | “Each text in every reading demands a created context” (p. 713). |
| Structuralism and Poststructuralism | Advocates for the idea that texts derive meaning from their systemic relations, not just their historical grounding. | “A text cannot be reduced to the immediate context of communication” (p. 704). |
| Archive Theory | Explores Derrida’s concept of mal d’archive, focusing on how archives generate and disrupt meaning over time. | “The very mark or trace that would seem to draw the text back… always and already tears any closed context from itself” (p. 706). |
| Conceptual Philosophy | Applies Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of concepts as intensive, creating orientations for thought rather than being fixed. | “Concepts open and destroy contexts… enabling modes of thought that cannot be reduced to contexts” (p. 716). |
| Pragmatism | Critiques overly pragmatic approaches to textual interpretation that prioritize immediate social acts over theoretical depth. | “Pragmatism reduces texts to their initial context of desires and purposes, missing their broader theoretical implications” (p. 708). |
Summary of Contributions:
- Colebrook’s essay revitalizes deconstruction by highlighting its necessity in a fragmented and posthuman world where traditional contexts decay.
- She critiques historicist and pragmatic frameworks for oversimplifying the relationship between texts and their socio-historical conditions.
- By engaging with conceptual philosophy and materiality, she bridges literary theory with broader philosophical inquiries into meaning and context.
- Her work directly challenges reductive approaches like Literary Darwinism and proposes a renewed focus on the generative and destabilizing potential of texts.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook
| Literary Work | Critique Through Colebrook’s Lens | Relevant Concept/Reference |
| A Slumber Did My Spirit Steal (William Wordsworth) | Highlights the fragility of contexts; questions whether meaning persists when historical or cultural context erodes. | “Are we so far away… from a posthuman world in which material instances of the archive remain, and yet the ‘original’ context… has disappeared?” (p. 703). |
| The Waste Land (T.S. Eliot) | Explores the difficulty of teaching Eliot’s highly intertextual poem in the absence of its original cultural references. | “How long can we as teachers of English struggle to give students the context they would need to read The Waste Land?” (p. 712). |
| The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (William Blake) | Critiques the singularity of Blake’s style, arguing that the specificity of his work opens it to decontextualized interpretations over time. | “Blake’s very singularity… produces works of such unique discursive difference that they appear nonreferential, mystical, or enigmatic” (p. 712). |
| Glamorama (Bret Easton Ellis) | Reflects on the hyper-contextual references in Ellis’s work, suggesting future readers may find the text inscrutable as contexts decay. | “Would not any future reader… encountering Glamorama… not be closer to Knapp and Michaels’s perplexed beachgoer encountering seemingly impossible signifying marks?” (p. 703). |
Summary of Critiques:
- Wordsworth: Examined for its potential loss of meaning in a posthuman, decontextualized context.
- Eliot: Highlighted as an example of the pedagogical challenge of preserving interpretive frameworks in a fragmented literary landscape.
- Blake: Analyzed for the paradox where specificity and idiosyncrasy lead to broader interpretive ambiguity.
- Ellis: Critiqued for reliance on ephemeral cultural references, posing questions about the text’s future readability.
Criticism Against “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook
- Overemphasis on Decontextualization
- Critics argue that Colebrook’s focus on decontextualization undermines the value of historical and cultural frameworks, which are essential for understanding many literary texts.
- Neglect of Pragmatic Interpretations
- By critiquing pragmatic approaches, Colebrook is said to dismiss the practical and immediate socio-political significance of texts, which can limit the applicability of her arguments to real-world contexts.
- Abstract and Elitist Framework
- Her reliance on theoretical concepts like those of Derrida and Deleuze may render her work inaccessible or overly abstract for broader audiences and practical literary analysis.
- Dismissal of Historicism
- Colebrook’s critique of historicism has been viewed as reductive, failing to acknowledge the nuanced ways in which historicism incorporates textual multiplicity and complexity.
- Limited Engagement with Biological or Evolutionary Criticism
- Her rejection of Literary Darwinism has been criticized for not sufficiently engaging with the potential insights such approaches might offer regarding the universal aspects of human creativity and storytelling.
- Overgeneralization of Textual Multiplicity
- The claim that all texts inherently destabilize their contexts may overgeneralize and neglect cases where specific historical or cultural grounding is integral to interpretation.
- Potential Inconsistencies in Theoretical Applications
- Some critics highlight that Colebrook’s advocacy for the dynamic and generative nature of texts might conflict with her critique of pragmatism and contextual grounding.
- Reduction of Political and Social Dimensions
- Critics argue that her theoretical focus may sideline the political and social dimensions of literature, which are crucial for understanding the impact of many works.
- Insufficient Examples of Contemporary Texts
- While Colebrook addresses some modern works, critics suggest that her essay would benefit from a broader analysis of contemporary texts to support her claims about decontextualization in the current literary landscape.
Representative Quotations from “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “A text cannot be contained within some context of safe, historical, and guaranteed astute reading.” (p. 702) | Highlights the instability of contextual readings and critiques the notion that texts are securely anchored to specific historical or cultural frameworks. |
| “We are now facing a world in which there may well be an archive without any possibility of retrieving sense.” (p. 703) | Reflects on the posthuman condition, where texts might exist in a context-less future, questioning the reliance on historical or human-based interpretive norms. |
| “Theory… is exactly what is required when the very contexts that have enabled a certain archive to be read can neither be guaranteed to survive nor justified.” (p. 703) | Asserts the importance of theory in addressing the contemporary challenges of interpreting decontextualized or fragmented archives. |
| “Deconstruction was criticized for supposedly reducing ‘everything’ to text, but understood text in a highly literary or linguistic manner.” (p. 708) | Responds to critiques of deconstruction, clarifying its broader philosophical implications beyond textual reductionism. |
| “There is no such thing as an original context.” (p. 712) | Challenges the idea that contexts are stable or original, suggesting instead that they are continually constructed and reconstructed through interpretation. |
| “Each text in every reading demands a created context: what this text would mean in the absence of its ‘original’ readers.” (p. 713) | Emphasizes the generative nature of reading, where new contexts are actively created rather than recovered. |
| “Concepts enable contexts by creating circulating terms irreducible to speakers.” (p. 716) | Draws on Deleuze and Guattari to highlight the role of concepts in transcending and reshaping contexts, fostering new interpretive possibilities. |
| “The very force that enables a context is also context-destructive.” (p. 717) | Reflects on the paradox that the creation of a context inherently disrupts its stability, opening texts to reinterpretation and recontextualization. |
| “Blake’s very singularity… tends to produce works of such unique discursive difference that they appear nonreferential, mystical, or enigmatic.” (p. 712) | Uses William Blake as an example to discuss how singular and context-bound works paradoxically invite open-ended interpretations. |
| “If there can be something like a literary text… then this is because of the necessary anarchism of text.” (p. 711) | Argues that the very nature of texts resists confinement, emphasizing their potential for decontextualization and interpretive freedom. |
Suggested Readings: “The Context of Humanism” by Claire Colebrook
- Colebrook, Claire. “The Context of Humanism.” New Literary History, vol. 42, no. 4, 2011, pp. 701–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41328993. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
- Tucker, Herbert F. “Introduction.” New Literary History, vol. 42, no. 4, 2011, pp. vii–xii. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41328985. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
- HEIDEPRIEM, SAMUEL. “Free Play in German Idealism and Poststructuralism.” Play in the Age of Goethe: Theories, Narratives, and Practices of Play around 1800, edited by Edgar Landgraf and Elliott Schreiber, Bucknell University Press, 2020, pp. 48–72. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1nj348t.5. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.