Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:37:59.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Literary Theory: From Deconstruction Back to History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Peter Jelavich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Various attempts have been made to bring to the attention of a wider historical audience the debates that have taken place among intellectual historians over the past decade. Such summaries may soon be in need of some updating. Insofar as many of these discussions have been inspired by developments among our colleagues in departments of literature, it is worth noting that those scholars likewise have engaged in heated exchanges. Since those debates seem to have resulted in a triumph of “history,” we may be looking forward to new modes of argument among intellectual and cultural historians as well. This essay will attempt to present a summary of the issues within poststructuralism that induced this turn to a “new historicism” in departments of literature, and it will conclude by offering some suggestions about the ways in which this tendency might be useful to the study of the German past.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 22 , Issue 3-4 , September 1989 , pp. 360 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Kelley, Donald, “Horizons of Intellectual History: Retrospect, Circumspect, Prospect,” Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (1987): 143–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Toews, John E., “Intellectual History after the Linguistic Turn: The Autonomy of Meaning and the Irreducibility of Experience,” American Historical Review 92 (1987): 879–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the debate between David Harlan, “Intellectual History and the Return of Literature,” ibid., 94 (1989): 581–609; and David A. Hollinger, “The Return of the Prodigal: The Persistence of Historical Knowing,” ibid., 610–21. See also the following collections of essays: Kaplan, Steven and LaCapra, Dominick, eds., Modern European Intellectual History: Reappraisals and New Perspectives (Ithaca, N.Y., 1982)Google Scholar; and Hunt, Lynn, ed., The New Cultural History (Berkeley, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. For the ensuing discussion, see Nietzsche, Friedrich, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, sections 16–19.Google Scholar

3. Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology, trans. Spivak, G. Ch. (Baltimore, 1976), 158.Google Scholar

4. de Man, Paul, The Resistance to Theory (Minneapolis, 1986), 11.Google Scholar

5. Weimann, Robert, Structure and Society in Literary History: Studies in the History and Theory of Historical Criticism (Baltimore, 1984), 276Google Scholar; and Eagleton, Terry, Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism (London, 1981), 139.Google Scholar

6. For a summary of the issues, see Wiener, Jon, “Deconstructing de Man,” The Nation, 9 01 1988, 22–24Google Scholar. For shorter defenses of de Man in this debate, see Norris, Christopher, “Paul de Man's Past,” London Review of Books, 4 02 1988, 7–10Google Scholar; and Culler, Jonathan, “Paul de Man's Contribution to Literary Criticism and Theory,” in Cohen, Ralph, ed., The Future of Literary Theory (New York, 1989), 268–79Google Scholar. For the full-blown battle, see especially Derrida, Jacques, “Like the Sound of the Sea Deep within a Shell: Paul de Man's War,” Critical Inquiry 14 (1988): 590–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the various responses, ibid., 15 (1989): 704–873.

7. Lentricchia, Frank, After the New Criticism (Chicago, 1980), xiii.Google Scholar

8. Miller, J. Hillis, “Presidential Address 1986: The Triumph of Theory, the Resistance to Reading, and the Question of the Material Base,” PMLA 102 (1987): 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “The Function of Literary Theory at the Present Time,” in Cohen, ed., The Future of Literary Theory, 102–3.

9. Derrida, Jacques, “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” in Writing and Difference, trans. Bass, Alan (Chicago, 1978), 280–81Google Scholar; and “Cogito and the History of Madness,” ibid., 36.

10. Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, section II.

11. Nietzsche, , “Über Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne,” in Sämtliche Werke (Berlin, 1988), 1: 880.Google Scholar

12. Foucault, Michel, “Truth and Power,” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings 1972–1977 (New York, 1980), 127.Google Scholar

13. Foucault, , The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. Smith, A.M. Sheridan (New York, 1972), 204.Google Scholar

14. See Foucauk, , “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Bouchard, Donald (Ithaca, N.Y., 1977), 139–164.Google Scholar

15. Foucault, Archaeology, 45.

16. Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” 139–40.

17. Foucault, “What is an Author?”, in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice, 137–38.

18. Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” 153.

19. Foucault, Archaeology, 55.

20. Foucault, , The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York, 1973), 387.Google Scholar

21. Foucault, , The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: An Introduction, trans. Hurley, Robert (New York, 1980), 93Google Scholar; see 92–97 for an extensive discussion of “power.”

22. Foucault, “The Discourse on Language,” appended to Archaeology, 229.

23. Foucault, Archaeology, 205.

24. Greenblatt, Stephen, “Introduction,” Genre, 15 (1982): 5, 6Google Scholar. Greenblatt spoke of a “poetics of culture” already in his earlier work, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago, 1980), 5.Google Scholar

25. Geertz, Clifford, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), 5.Google Scholar

26. Foucault, Archaeology, 48.

27. For general accounts, see Howard, Jean E., “The New Historicism in Renaissance Studies,” English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 13–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pechter, Edward, “The New Historicism and Its Discontents: Politicizing Renaissance Drama,” PMLA 102 (1987): 292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Montrose, Louis, “Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture,” in Veeser, H. Aram, ed., The New Historicism (New York, 1989), 15–36Google Scholar. Of course, the new historicism is spreading to many other fields as well: see the essays collected in the latter volume, as well as those in the movement's journal, Representations. So far, however, few of these works have dealt with Germany. For an appeal to Germanisten to adopt this approach, see Kaes, Anton, “New Historicism and the Study of German Literature,” German Quarterly 62 (1989): 210–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 4, 2.

29. Foucault, History of Sexuality: Introduction, 96.

30. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 9.

31. Ibid., 5.

32. Greenblatt, , Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley, 1988), 6, 19.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., 40.

34. Ibid., 133, 138.

35. Ibid., 89.

36. Ibid., 86.

37. Foucault, Archaeology, 127.

38. Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations, 7.

39. For leftist engagements in this debate, see Weimann, Structure and Society in Literary Theory; Lentricchia, After the New Criticism; and Jameson, Fredric, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca, N.Y., 1981).Google Scholar

40. Giddens, Anthony, Central Problems of Social Theory: Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis (Berkeley, 1979), 33–38, 45–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. For example, see the discussion of Austin and Searle in Iser, Wolfgang, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore, 1978), 53–62Google Scholar. For a more critical assessment, see Fish, Stanley, “How To Do Things with Austin and Searle: Speech-Act Theory and Literary Criticism,” in Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, 1980), 197–245Google Scholar. For a non-dialogue between Derrida and Searle, see Derrida, , “Signature Event Context,” in Glyph 1 (1977): 172–97Google Scholar; Searle, “Reiterating the Differences,” ibid., 198–208; and Derrida, “Limited Inc.: abc…,” ibid., 2: 162–254.

42. For example, see Tully, James, ed., Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (Princeton, 1988).Google Scholar

43. Geertz, “Thick Description,” 20.

44. Recently, Charles Maier has made a similar point in The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity (Cambridge, 1988), 168–72Google Scholar. See also Megill, Allan, Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida (Berkeley, 1985), 345.Google Scholar

45. A renewed assault was launched in 1987 by Victor Farias, whose book is now available in English: Heidegger and Nazism (Philadelphia, 1989)Google Scholar. See also the “Symposium on Heidegger and Nazism,” in Critical Inquiry 15 (1989): 407–88.Google Scholar

46. Sabean, David, Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modem Germany (Cambridge, 1984).Google Scholar

47. Goldman, Harvey, Max Weber and Thomas Mann: Calling and the Shaping of the Self (Berkeley, 1988).Google Scholar

48. Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film (Princeton, 1947).Google Scholar

49. See White, Hayden, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore, 1987)Google Scholar; and most recently, Kellner, Hans, Language and Historical Representation: Getting the Story Crooked (Madison, Wis., 1989).Google Scholar