New Historicism Exploring the value of history in literature

1. New HistoricismExploring the value of history in literature A sociological and anthropological approach to criticism

2. Background • Introduced in the 1980’s • Reaction to text-only approach by formalists • Acknowledges importance of text but analyzes text with an eye to history • Introduced by Louis Montrose and Stephen Greenblatt (“social energy” and “speaking with the dead”)

3. Main areas of study/points of criticism: • • Traditional history is, by its nature, a subjective narrative, usually told from the point of view of the powerful. The losers of history do not have the means to write their stories, nor is there usually an audience interested in hearing them. Most cultures, once dominated by another, are forced to forget their past. To maintain its sovereignty, the culture of power simply does not allow the defeated culture to be remembered. • • Traditional history is not only subjectively written, it is also read and discussed subjectively. Although modern readers say they take history at face value, no one can help but compare the past to the present as a means of understanding it, which makes it subjective. • • The powerless also have “historical stories” to relate that are not to be found in official documents, mostly because they played no hand in creating them.

4. Main areas of study/points of criticism: • • No reader can claim to have the “truth” of a text or event, or even that an understanding of the “truth” is possible. At best, one can acknowledge the “truth” of a particular point of view. • • The questions to ask are not: “Are the characters based on real people?” “Are any characters or events in the text drawn from the author’s life and experiences?” or “Is the text an accurate portrayal of the time period in which it is set?” Instead, ask “What view or understanding of the relevant culture does this text offer?” and “How does this text contribute to or shape the understanding of the culture it represents?” • • The text, rather than being a static artifact of a definable culture, is a participant in a dynamic, changeable culture. Every time someone reads it, he or she brings a unique set of experiences and points of view that change the meaning of the text, however slightly.

5. New historicism: The approach • Sees history as a series of discourses • Should incorporate diverse discourses • Embraces feminist, cultural, and Marxist criticism • Assumes works of literature both influence and are influenced by historical reality • Believes literature both refers and is referred to by things outside itself

6. Views on history • Defines discipline of history more broadly than predecessors; it is a social science • Needs to make sociohistorical subjects and methods central to literary studies • Links sociology and historical criticism • Anthropology particularly useful in literary criticism • There is never just one cause of an event; history is a series of events tied into a vast web of economic, social, and political factors • History is connected to power

7. Requirements of New Historicism • Critic must acknowledge and be aware of bias: historical vantage point as well as personal bias • Examine the voice of the writer and his/her experiential influence on the text

8. Procedure of New HistoricismJerome McGann Historical Studies and Literary Criticism (1985) and The Beauty of Inflecitons • Study the literary work’s “point of origin” via biography and bibliography • Consider the expressed intentions of the author • Learn the history of the work’s reception • Evaluate the aims and limitations of the text

9. AssumptionsH. Aram Veeser The New Historicism (1989) • Expressive acts cannot be separated from material conditions • Boundary between literary and nonliterary texts is a false division • Neither literary nor historical discourse “gives access to unchanging truths nor expresses inalterable human nature” • “Critical discourses adequate to describe culture under capitalism participate in the economy they describe”

10. Connection to New Cultural History Michel Foucault • Interest in anthropological and sociological subjects and methods • Creative way of weaving stories and anecdotes about the past into revealing thick descriptions • Tendency to focus on nontraditional, noncanonical subjects and relations • Redefine the boundaries historical inquiries: connect what seems unconnected • Examine history as an evolutionary process, a continuous development toward the present

11. Criticisms • Once again overlooks, or devalues, aesthetic properties of a text (doesn’t value literature for literature) • Anecdotal history (not enough historical research to substantiate claims) • Confuses fiction with nonfiction, intent with truths, etc.

12. Questions to ask while applying the criticism: • What events occurred in the writer’s life that made him or her who he or she is? What has affected his or her view of life? • Who influenced the writer? What people in his or her life may have helped him or her form this world view? • What did the writer read that affected his or her philosophy? What were the writer’s political views? Was he or she liberal? Conservative? Moderate? • In what level in the social order was the writer raised? How did his economic and social situation affect him or her? • At what level in the social order did the writer want to be? • From what level in the social order did the writer’s friends come? How were they employed? • How powerful was the writer socially? • What concerned the writer about society? What did he or she do about it? • What type of person was the writer in his or her society?

13. Questions (cont.) • What was happening in the world at the time the book was written? What was occurring during the time in which it is set? • What were some major controversies at the time the book was written? The time in which it is set? • Who was on either side of the controversy? Who were the powerful? Who were the powerless? • Why were the powerful in their positions of power? What qualities did they have? What events transpired to get them to their positions? • What is similar about the views and “facts” of this book and other books written in or about the same era? What is different? • How did the public receive the work when it was first published? • How did the critics receive the work when it was first published? • Did any change in culture result from the work? What changed? • What different perspectives of history does this text represent? • How does this text fit into the rules of literature in the era in which it was written?