Paper 7 : Literary Theory & Criticism Assignment
To Evalute My Assignment Click Here
Assignment
Paper 7 : Literary Theory & Criticism
Subject : Literary Term: New Historicism
Name : Sagar B. Vaghela
Sem : 2
Roll No : 32
Enrollment No : 2069108420180052
Email Id : sagarvaghela2020@gmail.com
Submitted To : S.B.Gardi Department Of English MKBU
New Historicism is a form of literary theory whose goal is to understand intellcutual history through literature, and literature through its cultural context, which follows the 1950s field of history of ideas and refers to itself as a form of "Cultural Poetics". It was first developed in the 1980s, primarily through the work of the critic and University of california, Berkeley English professor stephen Greenblatt and gained widespread influence in the 1990s. The term New Historicism was coined by Greenblatt when he "collected a bunch of essays and then, out of a kind of desperation to get the introduction done, I wrote that the essays represented something I called a 'new historicism'".
New Historicism is a literary theory based on the idea that literature should be studied and intrepreted within the context of both the history of the author and the history of the critic. Based on the literary criticism of Stephen Greenblatt and influenced by the philosophy of Michel Foucault, 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 that 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 color that critic's conclusions.
For example, when studying Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, one always comes to the question of whether the play shows Shakespeare to be anti-Semitic. The New Historicist recognizes that this isn't a simple yes-or-no answer that can be teased out by studying the text. This work must be judged in the context in which it was written; in turn, cultural history can be revealed by studying the work — especially, say New Historicists, by studying the use and dispersion of power and the marginalization of social classes within the work. Studying the history reveals more about the text; studying the text reveals more about the history.
The New Historicist also acknowledges that his examination of literature is "tainted" by his own culture and environment. The very fact that we ask whether Shakespeare was anti-Semitic — a question that wouldn't have been considered important a century ago — reveals how our study of Shakespeare is affected by our civilization.
New Historicism, then, underscores the impermanence of literary criticism. Current literary criticism is affected by and reveals the beliefs of our times in the same way that literature reflects and is reflected by its own historical contexts. New Historicism acknowledges and embraces the idea that, as times change, so will our understanding of great literature.
New historicism has been a hugely influential approach to literature, especially in studies of William Shakespeare’s works and literature of the Early Modern period. It began in earnest in 1980 and quickly supplanted New Criticism as the new orthodoxy in early modern studies. Despite many attacks from feminists, cultural materialists, and traditional scholars, it dominated the study of early modern literature in the 1980s and 1990s. Arguably, since then, it has given way to a different, more materialist, form of historicism that some call “new new historicism.” There have also been variants of “new historicism” in other periods of the discipline, most notably the romantic period, but its stronghold has always remained in the Renaissance. At its core, new historicism insists—contra formalism—that literature must be understood in its historical context. This is because it views literary texts as cultural products that are rooted in their time and place, not works of individual genius that transcend them. New-historicist essays are thus often marked by making seemingly unlikely linkages between various cultural products and literary texts. Its “newness” is at once an echo of the New Criticism it replaced and a recognition of an “old” historicism, often exemplified by E. M. W. Tillyard, against which it defines itself. In its earliest iteration, new historicism was primarily a method of power analysis strongly influenced by the anthropological studies of Clifford Geertz, modes of torture and punishment described by Michel Foucault, and methods of ideological control outlined by Louis Althusser. This can be seen most visibly in new-historicist work of the early 1980s. These works came to view the Tudor and early Stuart states as being almost insurmountable absolutist monarchies in which the scope of individual agency or political subversion appeared remote. This version of new historicism is frequently, and erroneously, taken to represent its entire enterprise. Stephen Greenblatt argued that power often produces its own subversive elements in order to contain it—and so what appears to be subversion is actually the final victory of containment. This became known as the hard version of the containment thesis, and it was attacked and critiqued by many commentators as leaving too-little room for the possibility of real change or agency. This was the major departure point of the cultural materialists, who sought a more dynamic model of culture that afforded greater opportunities for dissidence. Later new-historicist studies sought to complicate the hard version of the containment thesis to facilitate a more flexible, heterogeneous, and dynamic view of culture.
With a simple declarative statement, noted Renaissance scholar Stephen Greenblatt laid the foundation for what would become New Historicism, a mode of cultural inquiry that would change the direction of literary theory in the final two decades of the twentieth century. In his seminal volume Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (1988), Greenblatt acknowledges, “I began with the desire to speak to the dead.”
Desire is the keystone of New Historical inquiry, which aims to explore the past through its documents and to do so not as objective observers governed solely by reason, but as subjective participants fully cognizant that scholarly impartiality is impossible. Human interests are never far from human emotions, thus, human passion governs human inquiry. New Historicism, in its efforts to examine the material and ideological elements that governed people’s lives in specific time periods, is “conversing with the dead” through examining literary and historical texts; but this conversation is controlled by the living. In their approach to the past, New Historians can be considered time-traveling reporters. Primarily, these critics are interested in how literature functions as a political tool, as a by-product of power, and as part of cultural reproduction.
Work Cited :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historicism
https://www.enotes.com/topics/new-historicism
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0015.xml
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/subjects/literature/what-is-new-historicism
Assignment
Paper 7 : Literary Theory & Criticism
Subject : Literary Term: New Historicism
Name : Sagar B. Vaghela
Sem : 2
Roll No : 32
Enrollment No : 2069108420180052
Email Id : sagarvaghela2020@gmail.com
Submitted To : S.B.Gardi Department Of English MKBU
New Historicism is a form of literary theory whose goal is to understand intellcutual history through literature, and literature through its cultural context, which follows the 1950s field of history of ideas and refers to itself as a form of "Cultural Poetics". It was first developed in the 1980s, primarily through the work of the critic and University of california, Berkeley English professor stephen Greenblatt and gained widespread influence in the 1990s. The term New Historicism was coined by Greenblatt when he "collected a bunch of essays and then, out of a kind of desperation to get the introduction done, I wrote that the essays represented something I called a 'new historicism'".
New Historicism is a literary theory based on the idea that literature should be studied and intrepreted within the context of both the history of the author and the history of the critic. Based on the literary criticism of Stephen Greenblatt and influenced by the philosophy of Michel Foucault, 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 that 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 color that critic's conclusions.
For example, when studying Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, one always comes to the question of whether the play shows Shakespeare to be anti-Semitic. The New Historicist recognizes that this isn't a simple yes-or-no answer that can be teased out by studying the text. This work must be judged in the context in which it was written; in turn, cultural history can be revealed by studying the work — especially, say New Historicists, by studying the use and dispersion of power and the marginalization of social classes within the work. Studying the history reveals more about the text; studying the text reveals more about the history.
The New Historicist also acknowledges that his examination of literature is "tainted" by his own culture and environment. The very fact that we ask whether Shakespeare was anti-Semitic — a question that wouldn't have been considered important a century ago — reveals how our study of Shakespeare is affected by our civilization.
New Historicism, then, underscores the impermanence of literary criticism. Current literary criticism is affected by and reveals the beliefs of our times in the same way that literature reflects and is reflected by its own historical contexts. New Historicism acknowledges and embraces the idea that, as times change, so will our understanding of great literature.
New historicism has been a hugely influential approach to literature, especially in studies of William Shakespeare’s works and literature of the Early Modern period. It began in earnest in 1980 and quickly supplanted New Criticism as the new orthodoxy in early modern studies. Despite many attacks from feminists, cultural materialists, and traditional scholars, it dominated the study of early modern literature in the 1980s and 1990s. Arguably, since then, it has given way to a different, more materialist, form of historicism that some call “new new historicism.” There have also been variants of “new historicism” in other periods of the discipline, most notably the romantic period, but its stronghold has always remained in the Renaissance. At its core, new historicism insists—contra formalism—that literature must be understood in its historical context. This is because it views literary texts as cultural products that are rooted in their time and place, not works of individual genius that transcend them. New-historicist essays are thus often marked by making seemingly unlikely linkages between various cultural products and literary texts. Its “newness” is at once an echo of the New Criticism it replaced and a recognition of an “old” historicism, often exemplified by E. M. W. Tillyard, against which it defines itself. In its earliest iteration, new historicism was primarily a method of power analysis strongly influenced by the anthropological studies of Clifford Geertz, modes of torture and punishment described by Michel Foucault, and methods of ideological control outlined by Louis Althusser. This can be seen most visibly in new-historicist work of the early 1980s. These works came to view the Tudor and early Stuart states as being almost insurmountable absolutist monarchies in which the scope of individual agency or political subversion appeared remote. This version of new historicism is frequently, and erroneously, taken to represent its entire enterprise. Stephen Greenblatt argued that power often produces its own subversive elements in order to contain it—and so what appears to be subversion is actually the final victory of containment. This became known as the hard version of the containment thesis, and it was attacked and critiqued by many commentators as leaving too-little room for the possibility of real change or agency. This was the major departure point of the cultural materialists, who sought a more dynamic model of culture that afforded greater opportunities for dissidence. Later new-historicist studies sought to complicate the hard version of the containment thesis to facilitate a more flexible, heterogeneous, and dynamic view of culture.
With a simple declarative statement, noted Renaissance scholar Stephen Greenblatt laid the foundation for what would become New Historicism, a mode of cultural inquiry that would change the direction of literary theory in the final two decades of the twentieth century. In his seminal volume Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (1988), Greenblatt acknowledges, “I began with the desire to speak to the dead.”
Desire is the keystone of New Historical inquiry, which aims to explore the past through its documents and to do so not as objective observers governed solely by reason, but as subjective participants fully cognizant that scholarly impartiality is impossible. Human interests are never far from human emotions, thus, human passion governs human inquiry. New Historicism, in its efforts to examine the material and ideological elements that governed people’s lives in specific time periods, is “conversing with the dead” through examining literary and historical texts; but this conversation is controlled by the living. In their approach to the past, New Historians can be considered time-traveling reporters. Primarily, these critics are interested in how literature functions as a political tool, as a by-product of power, and as part of cultural reproduction.
Work Cited :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historicism
https://www.enotes.com/topics/new-historicism
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0015.xml
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/subjects/literature/what-is-new-historicism
Comments
Post a Comment