Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Critical Terms For Literary Study PDF

    Uploaded by

    Alejandra Castillo
    138 views30 pages

    Original Title

    Critical Terms for Literary Study.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    138 views30 pages

    Critical Terms For Literary Study PDF

    Uploaded by

    Alejandra Castillo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 30
    Critical Terms for Literary Study Second Edition Edited by Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin “Te Urvey of igo Ps hag 60837 "Te Unie oho Pre iy Loon 11990, 185 ty Te Ute of Che edn Od Sof rer cwapon01 099996979693. 12345 Ieuncozses72003 (8) urbana Hein Si "fin" nase pact be ry St er ‘Chong. Aghwee ° Aven of Fak Lena i ae of a Aero Sncoe Rea: ppl peso At and Pe “eta i oe aS 888 iby of Congres Cali Pbiion Ds a oma McLain ~2 nce bilgi eens ines 1. Crean Temi 2. Leer Temi. {Bog angange Terese, Fak Ti Metoup, Tooms. TELE 1998 eor-ge0H-—4a0 3680 (9 hep ne a ition ma he minima rps oft orn Neal Sad ‘maton Se Permanent ie i Pn ay aia ANT ZO Contents Preface tothe Second Eaton Insraduction ‘Voomas MeLaughlin 1 I. Larenarune as Warring 1 Representation WERT Mitel! n 2 Serucnate Job Caro Rove 23 3 Writing Barbara Jonson 39 4 Discoune PrulA. Boré 50 5 Namacive J Hillis Miler 65 6 Figurative Language Thomas MeLangitin 80 7 Reformance Henry Sayre 91 8 Author Donald E. Pee 105, I. Iereannrrarion 9 Interpretation Seren Mails iat 10 Incension Annabel Patienon 135, 11 Unconscious Prange Meer 147 12 exerminacy/Indeterminaey Geri Graff 163 13 Value/Evaluation Barbara Herren St 7 14 Influence Loic, Rema 186 {IL Lermnarune, Cutruag, Poumes 16 Culture Stephon Greens 225 17 Canon Jon Guillory 233 18 Literary History Lee Paterno 250 19 Gender Myr Jen 263 20 Race Kvume Anthony Appiah 21 Ethnicity Werner Sllors 288 22 Ideology James. Karanagis 306 23 Popular Culture ‘Jon Fiske 321 24 Diversity Louis Menard 336 2 Impesialsm/Nationaisn ‘Seam Deane 384 26 Desie Juih Br 369 27 Ethics Geafiy Gale Harp 387 28 Class Daniel OH 406 In Pet of an Afterword — Someone Realing Frank Leica 29 References “7 List of Coneributors 465 Index 469 Introduction Thomas McLaughlin TERARY theory, which has a deserved reputation fr is syistic and con cepa difcly, has escaped from the academy and become part of pop ‘Gar culture. “Deconstruction” i a word cha gets used in Newnveck, A crrent Beish pop group, Scrit Politi, publishes is lyrics under the copyright of “Jouissance Music” adapting for their own purposes the term thatthe French critic Roland Barthes ured to describe the pleasure of reading. “Jonssanc” the French idiomatic equivalent of “coming” appealed to Barthes because he called for a reading without restraint, a reading that amounted to a creative ac, lly inspired a writing. The face that chis term finds its way into pop culeure suggests hhow pervasive the mind set of literary theory has become in our time. [have ‘even heard a basketball coach say that his team had learned ro deconstruct zone Sefens. Literary theory has permeated our thinking tothe poinc tha it as de fined for our times how discourse about literature, 26 wel as about cule in general, shall preci Literary theory has atived, and no student of leature (an afford not to come ro tems with it. By Sterary theory” mean the debate over the nature and function of reading and writing that hallowed on the heels of structural linguistics and catural ‘analysis The basic premises of citcsm have been interrogated, again and again, from pecspecives at diverse as feminism, deconstruction, Marism, psycho analysis, semiotics, and readerresponse theory. Wha holds these various and ‘often combative programs and schools of though« together under the rari of theory is a shared commitment to understanding how language and ocr sys- tems of sign provide frameworks which determine how we read, and more gen craly how we make cence of experience, construct our own identiry, produce ‘meaning inthe world. Theory, then, gots st very basic questions that any serious reader must fae. ‘And yet many serous readers do resist theory. They are troubled rather than challenged by i. Thzory questions the assumptions by which readers re and Some readers fel tht theory chercby draws unnecessary attention to a proces ‘that ought to be imple and emotional. Like a runner who has just had a ‘coach analyze his stride and finds himself scumbling awhrardly, a reader might feel accosted by theory. Everything fels unnarural. Whats a author? Should We cae about the author's intentions? What is writing? How do (or should) readess proceed? What i at stake when we inerpetlitertuce? What is tera ture, and what isn't? How do we judge the value of literry work? Questions. ‘Too many questions And no lack of answers. Theory iscomtested territory. Everyone of the ques- tions T just raised, anda milion moee elicits a complex aay of answers, all ‘engaged in hetorcal struggle. Theory is certainly nota pice for readers to g0 for eay answers, for guides ro good eeading. Though every theorist offers an snswar of one kind of another t0 such questions, the cumtlatve effect ofthe ‘ariocs answer isto leave readers with more complicated and more unsettling ‘questions. And many readers—sradents and faculy, academics and other caref reades-—fecl that these questions come atthe expense oftheir own response ‘Theory is cerebral. Even witen it proclaims the Dionysia, its peformance is always Appollonian. I does’ et you just react emotionaly and trust your in tuition. I probes, asking, How did you do that? How did you make that sense ofthistex? Where are you coming from? So the very project of theory is unseting. I brings assumptions into ques ton. Irereates more problems than itsoves. And, to rop tof, ie does so in what is often a forbidding and arcane srye. Many readers are fightened of by the dificuty of theory, which they can then dismiss at an effre to cover up in an aif dlficul ele the fact that i as nothing to say This response seems tome raid as an emotional reaction tothe often madning dificuly of reading ‘theory, but i is finally just defensive. Ofcourse theory i dificulr—sometimes for compelling reasons, sometimes because of offensive slPindulgence—but simply asining that ci all empey shetoreuhimately keeps you fom confront- ing the real questions tht theory rises ‘Theory isnt ficule ou of spite. Its dificale because thas proceeded on the premise tha language itself ought to be its focus of atenion; that ordinary language is an embodiment ofan extremely powerful and wally unquestioned systemof values and belief; and that using ordinary language catches you up in that sytem. Any discourse that was our to uncover end quesion that system had 1 finda language, 2 sje, that broke from the constrains of common sense and ordinary language. Theory set out to produce ers that cold not be processed succesilly by the commonsenscal assumptions that ordaary language purs into pay. There are texts of theory thar esis meaning so powerflly—say those of Lacan or Krsteva—that the very proceso filing to comprehend the tex is partofwhatit hast of. Bur egitimate as che difclry of theory can be, one consequence of ts sys ‘iccommitment is tha it has ghetoizd itself, defining ite an esoteric disci- pine for advanced crc in elite instrations. And, accordingly the eritical stat gies that theory makes possible have had a imited politcal impact. The pop ‘alare of our time shows signs, 3s I mentioned earlier, tha srudents and general ‘readers may be ready fc theory, bu wnt very recently theory has noe been ready fo therm, Over the lat five years there have bee signs that theory could have a large educational and calral impact. Some curicla have been revised inthe light of theory, some remtbooks have Begun fo attempt to introduce theory toa more general audience. This text is part of that effort. Our aim isto present sradents and teaders who want to learn about theory with some examples of theorists at work. We wanted to resist the tendency common to some intoduc- tions to theory to provide capsule summaries of “critical school” or “ap- proaches” Such essays might provide an abstract and conceptual framework for beginners, but they donor provide the experience of theory, which ought to en- sage the reader in a strugele over language and with language. What we asked theodsts to do was to question the language of crscsm—in other words 0 de theory. Each theorist considered a diferent erm prevalent in literary discourse, ‘examining its history, the controversies it generates, the questions i ass, the reading strategie it permits. We also asked them to do so for an audience that tas not conversant with recent theory. Asa result, we are able to present essays in theory that demonstrate at well at articulate the basi issues that theory has ved ‘Our concentration on the terms of ecm comes our ofthe conviction chat the language we ue in aking and writing about literature sets the boundaries ‘within which we read, Ifwe wane to ge atthe assumptions tha shape our read ing practice, we should pay attention to the language we use a critical writers Inthe terms of erica discoure, especialy in dhe “ordinary language” of crit- cium, we ean se at work the framing and shaping power of our particular brand ff common sense. Almost all ofthe terms we chose are common and ordinary Tanguage, not technical terms or neologisms. They are tems tha are particularly prone tothe forgetfulness that comes with habiual use. We can put them into play as though they were neural term, exerting no particular pressure, com only understood tnd beyond question. They do such good work for us that ‘hey make themselves invisible "The esays inthis volume pose problems for such an easy process. They insist that terms have a history, that they shape how we read, and that they engage larger social and political questions. They als assume thatthe meaning of the term isa matter of dispute, which is simply crue in today’s theoretical environ ‘ment. The eisays want ro spotlight terms that funtion most efciently when ‘they are working behind the scenes. In some ways the model for our interest in the history of reams isthe work of Raymond Willams, in such books as Kowords td Marsim and Literature, Wiliams point is noc simply that che meanings of ‘eons change, but that their history impinges on thei curent ws, and that the radical changes that terms undergo suggest tha there is no stable and reliable rearing for any term. Tens cannot be wed though they were neural nse men. Tes sch s “clue” and “race” hae been putt so many ses ino many diferent socal and interpretive sigs that no xe of them can be inno, «ent. Using aterm commits you toa eof vale and rapes that has devel ‘oped over the hstory ofits se Is posible tows term in anew way, bute is ‘ot posible to escape the ems pase A brief example can be seen ithe history of the em uni? which is oen used n ctl discourse as though i deseibed a imeles and unquestonable ‘aluein the ans. Great aris united, the theory goes andthe more diversity it Jnclues and organizes, the pene the are. Baten abi ook a the history of the tem suggests char hee ie agreement on the nate r even the desi bility of unity. We need ony chink of the diference betwen the rather rig concept of my in some neodabial ets like Boileau and Comeile for whom tniry meant following set of rls about dhe arangement of tne, place, and ation ina ply—and the moee ful and organic nodon of uniy in the omntcs—for whom unity wat achieved not by following ules but by infu ing th material ofthe work withthe author peronaliy In ou centary, the -Amercan New Cees transformed “unity” ino a procedural pile which ‘mandited that an interpretation of work account forall its deals siete lated elements ofa thematic or formal whole. More contemporary theorists, 3s. xq of his procedure have tended to sc “unity” a coercive reading sa gy equiing us to impose unity on texs—lke Bke's Mariage of Fave an “a—tht seem robe blasing to smithereens. “Unie? ffom this pepe, ‘an frce us s readers who work under its apices to accept ita given and ‘ot question whether itis necessary and inevisble quality of at Tn adition to emphasing the historicity of teams, the esa inthis volume alu demonstrate that critical tems take prin ager social and call debates, Terms cannot simply be used and discarded using them places you ini an argument, oth inthe sense tha others might deny the importanct ofthe tm, and tn they might sage with your deiiton snd depioyment of the erm, Farhemore, dhe argument i not 2 “purely rary" on; wing a erm engages you, whether you know ior not, in specie cular and poll arguments 2 ‘ell you rea and interpret erature rom the perspective hate ter pen. de provides, you wil eos wth eres who seas ieleven othe sey of Irae (which, they migh elim, transcends gende). You wll aso have 0 make dear exactly how the te funons for you, which wil engage you in yet anor debate with others who we the vem diferent. Ara resi, your us of the tem had bene be concious and selfavae, aking acount ofthe em ‘ments thatthe term makes for you, Deus even without your awareness Che tex will make commisments—whether you ike i or not. The tem sill exes iss pover. Bur an unsefconscious we ofa txm can experienc that power only 28 limiation, a blindness tat canoe be detected A more cic we of he term lw dete ese of wha i enables a well a what rele and Thereby, provides 4 depres of conte forthe reader a wok Of eu norte gan pve contol of terminology We make commiimens whe ‘er we ue ngune nd thy ae too many snd oo complex to be fal mas tered. Bat ngs em crise a ee increases ur sarees of the coma iments we do make “Tite doc no, however, tempt to cove the ene rng of cent rit seems Recency spn tooinany ne ean eee the proces offing ino an aad trod spectrum of tana terms. Since We raved our esto be substantial investigations fhe tems, totl coverage of {he Sed wor imple i chose nto dea ith ems th inion 82 ‘Pecllaed vocabulary win pata theoeal progran—words Uke Der “Ts sence or Fou’ arhasogy” Rater, we fone our ateaton on Son wide sed win cote dco Some of them ke wig” and “Rit are orn begins wore hat have become cnc of hort tpecion and conor. Other ke “cre” and “course ae terme ‘Tose reno to erry sey hae changed in the pe of recent hry. STuonal ems of erry way—those ta might be nce nhac Teak of Irramure sucha “mol or “point of vew"—ae general ot Choe! in ths ex, but ony because of space Eitan. Thee tems, which fave now core anos 0 trea the veracle angge of rim, them tlhe dcr veins anton, They ae on one lee mpl selec Seve ey bring slong with the commen x comple he ters i ocuron hee Ter hehe” and po” wil or be ape, bat “hey must bead indeed ar being ough rough nore to make ese tte sunpaons they ringing. "To rma ds volume though, cm 10 alfred snenson “Th a wed widely, fe lo sd with ie preemenon ee mesring Thy arc ofen deployed unscltonscinsy fine of tei conmon we. The secon of terms however 0% bated ona col seamen ofthe nels ofthe caren moment I's ether, econ hat aigge what we dink Shon be te comics of cotcnporar theory Atop te comeibtos tthe volume bring co tc ak ery ilcentpincples and practices it possible to dacm sone common, i nor nanos, heme T would sugges tne important concems sound which the tems cate Ones of tere, dicount? and rare nape that fhe sb unde nova wifcontined cry tether 4 wing prec,» prt errton within he world of dicouse.Tems Sach cerning" and “anon?” thee of interpretation dcr Ain wht many inthe pine sew cures nor undewtanding fo mening pod A hid group of ta eae” ender” apd Ssesogy plas rane td inept ine ages aia ome, suggesting that there are political questions at issue in dhe reading proces. The terms chosen forthe text give, we fel, a rough overview ofthe current concerns ofliterar citicism and theory They ar the terms that sem to produce the most ‘ower interpretive questions a this moment, so they demand our attention In orde to understand what they empower and what they constrain. ‘Examining the fist group of terms, we sce that they empower an inquiry nro literature as writing not elevated into a realm of pure ac but, ater, maining ‘open tothe same socal entanglements and limitations that condition al writing, ‘This position contests the formals: or New Critical emphasis on th appreia- ‘on of literature in purely astherc terms, as writing that its us out ofhistory— tut of ourselves, inally—intoa timeless and universal ealm of beauty and truth ‘The essays inthis tet on such terms as “writing” “Sgurative language” and “narration” raise questions thac apply to trature bur also to othe forms of ‘writing as wel, and therefore suggest thar cerary writing does not enjoy a priv ‘lege stats within che arena of discourse. Figurative language doesnot happen only in poetry, and naraive doesnot happen only in novels. A plilosophical text can be informed by a naraiv strucrre; political text can reton pow: cerful gare of speech, And if these fearures of discourse do not respect any pu ‘ative boundary berween Inerarute and other forms of writing, neither do the politcal and worldly concerns of writing. Thinking of terature as writing em Dhaszs a text's entanglement in language as a system of values: lveature i part Df the process by which the values ofa cule are communicated. When we read, twe encounter those vals in familia form, 0 that they sez natural in hele reliability thee power to make sense of experience “Many rites have aged for the value of lieraare a a disruption ofthe very pattems that it employs. By its admittedly Geional scarus, the argument runs, Fitrature reveal its own productive power. Literaure draws artertion to the vale system, displaying icin operation. And once we atend tothe fc that our frame of reference is tocaly produced, we can think through to the possibilty ‘of changing it But this movement toward greater critical selF-consiousness does not fe readers from culture; rather, ie sisates them ever more indy, Readers always occupy 3 position from which they ea. “Thinking of literatute ae writing also entails 2 commitment roth acve ae productive role of interpretation. As writing, iterature is implicated in systems fof language and culture that open it tothe work of reading. Recent theory has emphasized the work of the reader who aetuaes the potential meanings made possible by the tex and by the interpeive practices through which the reader Works, Terms such as “evaluation” and “interpretation” i this text remind us that value and meaning ar the outcomes ofan active process, and thatthe pro- cess always oocurs within a specific elrual and politcal context. I s the reader ‘who produces mesning, but only by participating ina complex of scaly con Stracted and enforced pracrics. Value and meaning donot transcend history and cular, just a literature itself docs no, Inverpretation—the process of produc- ing cexual meaning —is therefore chetorcl, Tt doesnot liven realm of certain truths; ic lives in a world where only constructions of the truth are posible, ‘where competing interpretations argue for supremacy, Terms perform atleast ‘ovo functions within interpreration: they se the boundaries within which inter pretation may proceed, and they help enforce the rheroric ofan interpretation by serting the tems ofthe debate. In a context in which we begin withthe premise that no single “corret” interpretation is possible, since interpretation is nays thetorical, we ind that reons serve the function of shaping our reading process and of enforcing the ehetorcal power of the writing that comes out of that reading. Terms, tha is, wield power in an open interpretive i “The terms of the text also suggest, as Ihave emphasized, the participation of literature in culure and politics. Literarure is @ formation within language, which isthe prime instance of the cultural sytem. The production of lrerarare ways occurs wihin a complex cleura situation, and is reception i similarly Suated. Authors and readers ae constituted by their cultural placement. They {xe defined inside systems of gender, class, and race. They operate inside specific instrations that shape their practice. They have been brought up inside power- fal systems of valu, expecially powerful because these systems preset values as inevitable rather than as ideological, As 2 result, acts of reading are always cu ‘uly placed, angled atthe tex fom a specific point of view. Readers cannot legitimately claim to speak from outside or above che culture in some abstract, and objective position that allows aceess to the hidden but authentic truth, ‘Reading relies too mich on the values and habits of mind tha clrre ratifies to chim an anthropological objeciviy Tis che purges ofthis text to examine terms in order to discover the posi tons they provide for us ab readers. These terms commit ws to particular vals, and if we are avare of those commitments, we can legitimately take the positions ‘ve inhabit. Every reading promote the values that make i posible. A reading fsa chetorcal at within a huge cultural debate; is a mates of taking side. “Taking ses does not involve an apocalyptic moment of choice between to neatly opposed schools of thought socialism or individualism, patriarchy or Feminism, clored or open models of inerpreation. Rather, aking ses develops ‘overtime, through a series of decisions and commiements in specific reading Situations that develop into a cular sje, a way of negotiating experience. “Terms remind us that reading is social and therefore politcal. Readers need to know how these ofa tec enlists them into the debate. ‘Affe the three sections of terms inthe tet, there follows an essay by Frank “Lesvicchia which, as its ie suggests, takes the place ofan afterword. A tad ‘onal afterword sums up the points made by the book, providing a sense of closure. Instad, this extay dramatizes and demonsrates the issues the book ‘ses by presenting reading of « poem, Wallace Stevens's “Anecdote of the Js” Js 2s we chose nor to present in these essays introductions to theory but rather instances of theory, Lentscchia ofers a reading that is informed by the isues raised by current theory, His essay ats out the options and prebleme nised by ‘various theorercal schools and approaches as they are encountered by “eomcone reading” He also demonstrates that no reading is, o should dee tobe, inno cent of politcal involvement. “Anecdote ofthe Jt” is nor an otherworldly ar- fcr, even iit Seems to claim that sta for itself i sharpens cur avarenes of| the structures of power that made it possible and make our reading ofit posible. ‘The essay inthis book are out co bring those structures tothe surfce. The terms by which reading proceeds are the instruments of these powerful struc- tures, setting ou the lines in which reading proceeds. Is therefoe imeresting tonote that the etymology of “terminology” designates it asthe nay of bound: ares, A “term” isa boundary line, a line of demarcation. Tr defines 2 eld in ‘which work can be done, within the limits ofthe term, But like al boundaries, even those merculouly surveyed, terms are socal and zrbierary, not natural and inevitable. What divides my property fiom my neighbor's is not 2 natural ‘boundary but a social system within which certain definitions of property pre sail. [eis importaeto remember that terms function in the same way. Tey limit snd regulate our reading practices. But they do not do so by divine fst. Their limitations can be brought to consciousness, thei regulations can be overcome, 8 Lenercchia’s essay suggest. Te isnot dhe job ofthis text vo regulate those ‘boundaries more carefully. Rather, these essays attempt to de-nazraiethelim- it hac on real eons iapoess fo define ist dose off questions and meanings, then the esays in this col lection are not definitions. They question the teams, searching for thee powers nd thee weaknesses Terms are inevitable—no discourse cou go on without them, But they can be used in various ways, unselfeonsiousy, as though their meaning were self-evident, or consciously, with the awarenes that sing a term shapes reading and incerpreation. Awareness is not freedom, but feedom from terminology is not the goal. A more modest and attainable go is lamin to negotiate the compexies oie in language. Leaning how teas work part cof leaming how meaning is produced, and this in tum, i par ofthe proces of entering into that productive acy ll Unconscious Frangoise Meltzer Ts DIFFICULT with this term ss great hati ised inthe te of ‘hse Ifthe de read "The Unconscious” then the tm would bea ost substantive, a bing. But her isa good deal ofconovery abou his, ted many argue thatthe unconscious sneer thing, nor plc, and that the tema therefor only be used aan adjective: or example, "unconscious act iy (boc never “the activity ofthe unconscious”) ‘Silay complex is the Fac that tobe “unconssious can mean al sms of ting —sythng rom being alep, vo beng in ignorance of somethin, 0 Beng coma, to having a ceri kind of innocence, ands on. The way that Betz wl incre us here, however, isin is pychologial sense: he idea chat Fndvdal has within him acs of which hei not aware. Buti this 5 f]00, me rin up against the two central questions concerning any m0 Beef “unconscious”: (1) Is the unconscious apace ors ithe atv of er foes in the pyche and therefore ne an “ie” at all but eather ahow"? and How cn the extenceof “unconscious” be ascertained inthe St place since is by denton something of which we are not aware? oth of these ques shouldbe hep in mind his esay progrewe. Armes we willbe refer. Suncom” as“ (the word Feud acually wes in Geman wo refer reas in fit, “das, bu cms be ses chat uch sas fom a syntactic dificalty ands net meane to imply tha the uncon: slwnys a thing—or indeed, pecaps ever one. ive ae proceeding herewith the prychologcl sense ofthe term, is unconous has ben problem for phlouophy fom the begin brings have iva raked of “ack powers” forcing them ro do didnot incend; making chem embask upon hopeless x incompre- Sins inspite of themselves. Mos cigions ae grounded in se ive powers in which one neverdhles believes, a ae many ies ofthe unknown or unknowable in che mind of humankind bs and the concept ofan unconscious canbe made vo dovetalicely thrlopcal bl. FRANGOISE MELTZER sige hidden, “undetected bythe soul? and rica bringing forth, in the mannes of ai rent ies or meri into concious Pat, Asal, Ps a ugune, and Anas, ro name afew al concerned thems wih