Lecture 4: Historicism
Objectives
At the end of the lecture, you should be able to:
Ø define historical criticism
Ø discuss the theoretical tenets of historical criticism
Ø distinguish between Old and New Historicism
Introduction
Historicism is a critical movement insisting on the prime importance of historical context to the interpretation of texts of all kinds. It is an approach concerned with understanding texts in social and historical context. Historicist criticism of literature and culture, therefore, focuses on how the meaning of a text, idea, or artifact is created about the historical context in which it is produced or experienced. To the historicists, all meaning is thus historically determined. In other words, there is no room left to ‘naturally’, eternally or universally. Here, we may be helped by Beiser, whose understanding of historicism emerges from its operative verb: Roughly, to historicize our thinking means to recognize that everything in the human world—culture, values, institutions, practices, rationality—is made by history, so that nothing has an eternal form, permanent essence or constant identity which transcends historical change. The historicist holds, therefore, that the essence, identity or nature of everything in the human world is made by history, so that it is entirely the product of the particular historical processes that brought it into being. (Beiser, German Historicist Tradition, 2). Meaning, instead, emerges from the languages, beliefs, practices, institutions, and desires of particular historically located cultures (Malpas, Simon and Paul Wake, 2006).The most prominent late 20th century critical fashions, Poststructuralism and Postmodernism have ended up being understood through the images of history they imply. Historical criticism emphasizes the social and cultural environment that surrounds a work of art. Historical criticism has several goals including the study of a particular culture and the evolution of literary tradition. Historical criticism attempts to understand literary references in the context of the environment in which they were written since both language and cultures change over time.
Griffith states that historical critics believe they could illuminate works of literature by studying what gave birth to them: the intellectual and cultural environment from which they came, their sources and antecedents, authors’ lives, authors’ intentions, and authors’ language. Two French philosophers who influenced historical criticism are Auguste Comte and Hippolyte Taine. Taine, in his History of English Literature (1863), holds that all art is an expression of the environment and time in which the artist lived. A major emphasis of historical criticism is the historical periods and intellectual movements to which works belonged. To this end, critics studied the conventions and ideas that characterized movements, such as blank verse during the Renaissance and an emphasis on free will during the Romantic period. Historical critics assumed that the ideas associated with a particular age were manifested in the works of the age.
There are two main historicisms: Old Historicism and New Historicism.
Ø a. Old Historicism: History as written is an accurate view of what is really occurred. History serves as a background to literature. By applying the historical context to the texts, the critic believes that he/she can formulate a more accurate interpretation of texts. In the broadest sense, Old Historicism might be defined as any historical work concerning literature before the rise of New Historicism in the 1980s. Old Historicism acknowledges the fact that works of literature often present the dominant ideologies and cultures as the only ideologies and cultures. Historicists would unquestionably accept this biased representation and conclude that this was the “spirit of the age”. In other words, they would not see the time period they were studying as complex. They would “objectively” describe the society as functioning under only the dominant ideologies. Old Historicism provides background to the historical understanding of literature. Traditional or Old Historicism approaches the literary history as “a series of isolated monuments and achievements of individual genius.” Old Historicism stresses the idea that literature exists in a vacuum, separate from its historical and cultural contexts. The historicists who are influenced by the Hegelian idealism and the evolutionary naturalism of Herbert Spencer, study literature in the context of social, political and cultural history and place history as the background of the literary texts. The old historicists hold the views that history is not so much textual as more simply “a series of empirically verifiable events”. (Bennett & Nicholas, 2016)
b. New Historicism: New Historicists, on the other hand, would view the societies of the past as complex, so complex that they could not define it under an umbrella term like the “spirit of the age”. They would point out that the dominant ideologies given preferential in works of literature were not the only ideologies of a certain time period. New Historicists strive to highlight the marginalized and suppressed voices and discover how they functioned and/or how they are represented in a work of literature written during the time that society existed. New Historicism is a literary method that pays attention to the socio-cultural and historical conditions rooted in a literary work. To new historicists, both the literary texts and authors are cultural artifacts because they are product of their negotiation with history and cultural exchange. New Historicism saw “literary history as part of a large cultural history.” The new historicists conceive that “the literary text is situated within the institutions, social practices and discourses that constitute the overall culture of a particular time and space, and that the literary text interacts as both a product and a producer of cultural energies and codes.” (Abram, 2004) The statement underscores the inseparable connection between literature and the broader cultural context. A literary text is not only influenced by the institutions, social practices, and discourses of its time and space but also actively contributes to and shapes the cultural dynamics through its role as both a product and a producer. This perspective aligns with cultural and historical approaches to literary analysis, emphasizing the importance of understanding literature within its cultural and contextual framework.
This literary critic assumes that a literary critic must understand the history of the author to analyze the literary text. New historicism adherents believe that themes and characterizations in each literary text develop due to the influence of social conditions in their time. In addition, literary works are also the work of humans and the results of history (Bano et al., 2005).
Historical Background of New Historicism
New Historicism emerged as a literary theory in the late 1970s and early 1980s, during a time of political and social upheaval in the United States. The Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movement, and the anti-war movement were all shaping the cultural landscape, and the scholars in the humanities were increasingly interested in exploring the relationship between literature and society. The emergence of New Historicism can also be seen as a response to the limitations of earlier literary theories, such as New Criticism and formalism. These approaches tended to focus on the text itself and its formal elements, rather than the social and historical contexts in which it was produced. It is an interdisciplinary approach to literary criticism that examines literature in the context of the historical and cultural circumstances in which it was produced.
New Historicism emphasizes the interrelationship between literature and history, and the ways in which power relations, social norms, and cultural practices are reflected and contested in literary texts. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the social and political context in which a text was produced, and the ways in which that context shapes the meaning and reception of the text.
New Historicists believe that all cultural artifacts, including literature, are embedded in the social and political structures of their time. Therefore, they argued that it is impossible to fully understand a literary work without understanding the social and political contexts in which it was produced. This includes analyzing not only the text itself but also the historical events, the cultural norms, and power relations that were present at the time of its creation.
New Historicism also stresses the idea that history is not a fixed or objective reality, but rather a series of interpretations and narratives that are constantly being constructed and reconstructed by those in power. Therefore, New Historicists are interested in exploring how literary texts participate in the ongoing processes of creating and shaping history. In addition to literary texts, New Historicism also examines non-literary sources such and diaries, legal documents, and historical accounts to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the historical context of a literary text.
New Historicism is characterized by a parallel reading of a text with its socio-cultural and historical conditions, which form the co-text. New Historicism rejected the fundamental tenets of New Criticism (that the text is an auto telic artefact), and Liberal Humanism (that the text has timeless significance and universal value). On the contrary, New Historicism, as Louis Montrose suggested, deals with the “textuality of history and historicity of the text. Textuality of history refers to the idea that history is constructed and fictionalized, and the historicity of the text refers to its inevitable embedment within which the socio-political conditions of its production and interpretation.
Not dealing with a text in isolation from its historical context, new historicists pay more attention to the historical and cultural context of the literary text. This is not the simple return to the old historicism, because the former scholars had taken the social and intellectual history as the background of the literary works and they had tried to divide history into different periods in tableaux. But the New Historicism has viewed literature as the reflection of the worldview of a period. From the perspective of the new historicists, history is not merely the background of literature any more. Literary texts not only represent the conclusion of a cultural conversation in one historical period but also participate in that conversation. Literary texts are agents as well as effects of cultural change and are parts of the documents which compose the history. And the new historicists argue that any knowledge of the past is necessarily mediated by the current authorities and history is textual in many respects. This means that history or the world referred to by literary works, not only become an integral and unified background in the text, but history itself is composed of various kinds of texts that make up reality according to their respective versions of the authors. New Historicists take the marginal events and figures the same way with the mainstream. Instead of praising the existent aesthetics, new historicists focus more on the exploring of the formation process of the ideology and the material basis. As a literary criticism, New Historicism is difficult to define and just as H. Aram Vesser says: “New Historicists combat empty formalism by pulling historical considerations to the center stage of literary analysis” [4]. The statement suggests that New Historicists criticize an overly formalistic approach to literary analysis that neglects historical context. They assert that a more comprehensive understanding of literature can be achieved by giving due importance to the historical conditions that influenced the creation and reception of a text. By pulling historical considerations to the forefront, New Historicists aim to enrich literary analysis and provide a more nuanced interpretation of literary works within their broader cultural and historical context.
New Historicism is a literary theory based on the idea that literature should be studied and interpreted within the context of both the history of the author and the history of the critic. New Historicism acknowledges not only that a work of literature is influenced by its author’s times and circumstances, but that the critic’s response to the work is also influenced by his environment, beliefs, and prejudices. A new Historicist looks at literature in a wider historical context, examining both how the writer’s times affected the work and how the work reflects the writer’s times, in turn recognizing that current cultural contexts colour that critic’s conclusions.
New Historicism is characterized by a parallel reading of a text with its socio-cultural and historical conditions, which form the co-text. New Historicism rejected the fundamental tenets of New Criticism (that the text is an auto telic artefact), and Liberal Humanism (that the text has timeless significance and universal value). On the contrary, New Historicism, as Louis Montrose suggested, deals with the “textuality of history and historicity of the text. Textuality of history refers to the idea that history is constructed and fictionalized, and the historicity of the text refers to its inevitable embedment within which the socio-political conditions of its production and interpretation.
What is the difference between old historicism and new historicism?
Old Historicism and New Historicism are two different approaches to literary and cultural analysis, each with its own perspective on the relationship between literature and history. Here are the key differences between the two:
Focus on Text vs. Context:
Old Historicism: This approach, also known as traditional or historical criticism, tends to focus primarily on the literary text itself. It aims to understand a work of literature by considering the historical context in which it was produced. However, the primary emphasis is often on the text rather than on broader cultural or social contexts.
New Historicism: In contrast, New Historicism expands the scope of analysis beyond the literary text. This approach considers both the text and the historical context as mutually constitutive. New Historicists argue that literature and historical context are interwoven, and an understanding of one is essential for understanding the other. It looks at literature as a product of its time and culture.
Objectivity vs. Subjectivity:
Old Historicism: Old Historicists often aim for an objective analysis of a literary work, seeking to uncover historical facts and events that might have influenced the author and the text. The focus is on identifying and understanding the historical backdrop without necessarily examining power dynamics or multiple perspectives.
New Historicism: New Historicists recognize the subjectivity inherent in historical interpretation. They are interested in exploring how power structures, ideologies, and marginalized voices shape both history and literature. This approach acknowledges that historical narratives are often contested and influenced by different perspectives.
Authorial Intent vs. Cultural Discourse:
Old Historicism: Old Historicism may place more emphasis on authorial intent and the circumstances surrounding the creation of a literary work. The goal is often to discern the author's motivations and influences based on historical evidence.
New Historicism: New Historicists are less concerned with authorial intent and more interested in the cultural discourse that emerges from a literary work. They focus on how the text participates in and reflects broader cultural, social, and political conversations of its time.
Static vs. Dynamic View of History:
Old Historicism: Old Historicism may present a somewhat static view of history, emphasizing a fixed context in which the literary work is produced. The historical context is seen as a background against which the text can be interpreted.
New Historicism: New Historicists view history as dynamic and ongoing. They are interested in how power structures and cultural dynamics change over time, and how these changes are reflected in literature. The focus is on the ongoing dialogue between literature and history.
While Old Historicism and New Historicism share an interest in the relationship between literature and history, the latter represents a more nuanced and dynamic approach that considers the complex interplay between texts and the cultural contexts in which they are produced.
An outstanding example that may highlight the difference between the two perspectives is Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre. Old Historicist: Jane is mainly influenced by the teachings of the Protestant Church, which was a dominant institution during the Victorian era. 19th century England was dominated by religion: Church State and were intertwined and religion had a large influence on politics. Since the Church disavows polygamy and severely looks down on: women being mistresses, she only agrees to marry Mr. Rochester when he is widowed. New Historicist: Jane is a Feminist, she is greatly influenced by Feminism which was a slowly emerging ideology during the Victorian era (the time the novel was written) and only agrees to marry Mr. Rochester when he sees her as his equal. Gender roles were extremely important in Victorian society, and men dominated almost all aspects of society. Women were to rely on men for financial support. Therefore, the aspects contained in Bronte’s work are not only about romance, but sociological aspects are so dominant in her time.
Some of the key concepts associated with New Historicism include:
Context: New Historicists believe that literature cannot be understood apart from its historical and cultural context. They argued that literary texts are shaped by the social, political, and economic forces of their time, and that a deep understanding of these contexts is necessary in order to fully appreciate a work of literature.
Cultural Poetics: (Cultural Materialism in Great Britain) Cultural poetics is an approach that emphasizes the importance of the relationships between texts and the social and cultural practices of their time. It declares that all history is subjective, written by people whose personal biases affect their interpretation of the past. This approach seeks to uncover the ways in which cultural practices are reflected in literary texts.
Contingency: New Historicism emphasizes the idea of contingency which means that history is not predetermined, but shaped by variety of factors, including chance events and the actions of individuals. Historical events are dependent on multiple causes that shape when, how and why an event happened the way it did. This approach sees those historical events as dynamic and constantly changing.
Power and Discourse: New Historicists are interested in the relationship between power and discourse. They believe that language is not neutral but is shaped by power relations. New Historicists explore how cultural texts participate in the shaping of social and political power relations.
Intertextuality: New Historicists emphasize the idea that all texts are interconnected and that literary works are influenced by and in conversation with other texts. They are interested in exploring how literary works borrow from and transform earlier literary traditions and cultural practices. (That all texts are woven from the tissues of other texts)
Ideology: New Historicists are interested in exploring the ways in which literature participates in the construction and dissemination of cultural ideologies. They argue that literary works are not neutral, but rather reflect and reinforce the dominant cultural beliefs and values of their time.
Historicism: New Historicists reject the idea that literature exits in a vacuum, separate from its historical and cultural contexts. Instead, they emphasize the importance of historicizing literary texts by situating them within their specific historical moments and cultural contexts.
Key Figures
Here are some key figures associated with New Historicism.
Stephen Greeblatt: Stepehen Greenblatt is considered one of the founders of New Historicism. His book “Renaissance Self-Fashioning from More to Shakespeare (1980), is seen as a landmark work in the field. Greenblatt’s work explores how writers in Renaissance period constructed their identities and participated in the larger cultural and political movements of their time. Stephen Greenblatt introduced a new perspective in the study of the Renaissance, namely by emphasizing the relevance of literary texts to the various social, economic and political forces that surround them. (Emphasizing the relationship between literary texts and non-literary texts). It is a method based on the process of studying in parallel literary and non-literary texts. This means that New Historicism compares literary texts with non-literary texts (Berghan, 1992).
Louis Montrose: Montrose is another important figure in New Historicism. His work focuses on the relationships between literature, history and ideology. Montrose argues that literary texts are not simply reflections of historical events, but are actively involved in shaping those events.
Catherine Gallaghar: Gallaghar’s work focuses on the relationship between literature and economics. She explores how literary texts participate in the economic practices of their time and how they reflect the social and economic conditions in which they were produced. Catherine Gallaghar is known for her work “The Body Economic: Life, Death and Sensation in Political Economy and the Victorian Novel” (2006), explores the ways in which Victorian literature reflected and participated in the development of economic theory.
Allan Sinfield: Sinfield’s work focuses on the relationship between literature and sexuality. He argues that literary texts participated in the construction of sexual identities and that they reflect the social and cultural norms surrounding sexuality.
Michel Foucault: Although not strictly New Historicist, Foucault’s work on power and discourse has been influential in the development of New Historicism. His ideas about the ways in which power relations shape cultural practices and institutions have been particularly important to New Historicist scholars. Michel Foucault argued against the stability of language, the authority of texts, and the existence of universal truths.
Michel Foucault’s work on discourse and power examines how knowledge, language, and social norms shape society’s structures and people’s roles. He sees power not just as something a government or ruling class holds, but as a dynamic force present in all relationships, mediated by the use of language, institutions, and cultural norms. Foucault’s theory of discourse and power is critical for understanding how certain ideas or beliefs become dominant and how societies establish norms that govern individuals' behavior and self-perception. For Foucault, "discourse" is more than language or speech; it encompasses the entire set of ideas, concepts, and ways of thinking that define a particular period or cultural context. Discourses influence how reality is constructed, determining what can be thought, said, or even perceived as truth. Discourse creates frameworks for understanding the world, shaping topics like medicine, sexuality, psychology, and criminality. His ideas help explain how norms and "truths" evolve within society, how certain practices become normalized, and how individuals both conform to and resist these norms.
Here are some questions that New Historicist critics ask when analyzing literary texts:
1. What historical events, social structures and cultural practices influenced the production and reception of the text?
2. How does the text reflect or participate in the social and political power relations of its time?
3. What ideologies are expressed or contested in the text, and how they relate to larger cultural and historical contexts of the text?
4. How does the text interact with other cultural texts of its time, such as historical documents or philosophical treatises?
5. What literary strategies does the author use to construct meaning, and how do these strategies reflect or challenge the social and political assumptions of their time?
6. How does the text reflect the contingency of history, and what role do chance events and individual actions play in shaping historical events?
The approach has been applied to a wide range of literary works from Shakespearean drama to contemporary novels, and has influenced literary scholarship in fields such as feminist theory, post colonial studies, and cultural studies.
Over all, New Historicism is a literary theory that emphasizes the interconnectedness of literature, history, and culture and seeks to explore the ways in which literary texts participate in and reflect broader cultural and historical processes.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Selden, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004.
[2] M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004.
[3] A. Bennett, R. Nicholas, An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, Routledge, 2016.
[4] H. A. Veeser, The New Historicism, Routledge,1989.
[5] S. Greenblatt, G. Gunn, Redrawing the Boundaries: the transformation of English and American literary studies. The Modern Language Association of America, 1992.
[6] H. White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. The Johns Hopkins University Press,1973.
[7] Zhu G., Twentieth Century Criticism. Peking University Press, 2006.
[8] J. Mc Gann, Historical Studies and Literary Criticism. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.