New Historicism

A New Approach on Literature

By Nugraha Dian Putra

The Essay - New Historicism Reading

05185116 - Nugraha Dian Putra English Department 26th February 2009 Abstrak Tulisan ini menunjukkan keterkaitan antara Pengetahuan, Kuasa, dan Kepentingan yang terinspirasi oleh metode penelitian New Historicism serta gagasan pemikir Perancis Michel Foucault mengenai formasi wacana arkeologi pengetahuan dalam perkembangan kritik sastra khususnya di Sastra Inggris, Universitas Andalas. Tulisan ini menelaah konsep dasar New Historicism dalam keterkaitannya membuka dimensi (wacana) baru terhadap khazanah kritik sastra. Introduction New Historicist Criticism took shape in the late 1970s and early 1980s as opposed to New Criticism and to the critical deconstruction. It is also new and differ markedly from its former (old) historicism to view literature as a stable events which can be used as background of an era, or simply as a reflection that refer to material condition (as in early Marxism) of particular epoch of literature. Instead, it views literary texts as situated and negotiated the oft-disregard fragmentary view lies beyond a work. How relevant the concepts and procedures of New Historicism to the development of literary criticism in the department? What may New Historicism offer either to students or lecturers? What is implied within its use? In order to answer those critical questions, thus, it is critical to put the basic concepts, themes, and procedures of New Historicism within the context of its method so as to fulfill a fair basic assumption on the criticism and its relevance. In this essay, I will profoundly configure those fragmentary presumptions on concepts which can be used as the basic themes on New Historicism reading procedures. In essence, the use of the method on literary works would be dependent and be flexible, as it suggested (within New Historicism) that no claim for exclusiveness on theories by means that every work develops its greatness on the background of the epoch that it evolved from. This flexibility is accordingly determined by the problems that occurred and resolved with the provision of theories, as it is inferred within the basic concept of New Historicism that there is no master discourse (theory). What is new in New Historicism? New Historicism is first introduced by Stephen Greenblatt in 1980s, as he often refers this term to be a set of practices of cultural poetics. The first appearance of New Historicism; its concepts, themes and procedures were most presumed by the scholar 1

of the English Renaissance in the late of 1970s and early of 1980s. They stressed their attention to the literary form of drama, and alert within such texts the voices of the oppressed, the marginalized, and the dispossessed. In advanced, students and historicists of the English Romantic redeveloped parallel conceptions of the intertextuality of literature, history and politics. They suggested that the representations in literary texts are not simply as reflectors of reality but concretized the absence of history in order to uncover the literature and political contradictions. In 1990s, it viewpoints and practices have displaced deconstruction as the reigning mode of avant-garde critical theory and practice, that it stressed the embeddedness of literature in historical circumstances. New Historicism, then, becomes one of several theories and approach in literary theory within almost these three decades of the 20th century. What is new within this theory? As Hitchcock posits in his Theory for Classics that: Like so many words in the English language, theory comes from the Greek theoria, which means a viewing or spectacle and offers a way of seeing. In this way, theory serves like a pair of conceptual spectacles that you use to frame and focus on what youre looking at. It can serve as a tool for discerning, deciphering, and making sense. Alternatively, theory can provide a position from which to engage in a critique of the status quo. (Hitchcock xii) Even so, the connection and its relevancy of interdisciplinary methods or theories provide readers and critics to see that such principal or one basic theory can be no longer appropriate on presenting interpretation. In fact, several researches precisely unpacked several approaches to uncover its problems. It demands conceptual basics of interdisciplinary approaches and theories. New Historicism, therefore, provides needs on that fragmentary view instead of one ultimate interpretation which is an illusionary exploitation of the unitary work. This exploitation is considerably discriminations between literature and non-literary texts to be a construct of one ultimate ideology of discursive formations. The nature of representation is the most important issue in our understanding of what is history. This nature simply elaborated within these illustrations that, an author always present his /her (literary) work through several ways, and, it is readers/critics who represent the authors objectives within numerous method(s). Old Historicism had failed to see that history as background of literary overview, that literary works is not only the production of history but it also produces the history, norms, conventions and cultural values of an era. Neither formalism nor New Criticism critics succeed to ensure the autonomous of the text itself as the method. Texts can be manipulated, to see history simply within its text is sometimes ambiguous and often conflicting textual representations, it bears the marks of repeated emendations additions, deletions, embellishments, translations. New historicism, however, adjust these approaches of formalism and history described in oft-quoted phrase by Louise Montrose, as a reciprocal concern with the historicity of texts and the textuality of 2

history. That is, history is an interaction of texts to be interpreted, and any text is conceived as a discourse in which consists of what we called representations. The Terms, Theory and Practice: Michel Foucault Whenever one can describe, between a number of statements, such a system of dispersion, whenever, between objects, types of statement, concepts, or thematic choices, one can define a regularity (an order, correlations, positions and functionings, transformations), we will say, for the sake of convenience, that we are dealing with a discursive formation. (Foucault, Archaeology 4142) Michel Foucault (192684) was a French philosopher, social and intellectual historian, and renowned cultural critic. The methodology of exploring the relation between discourse and reality of an era puts Foucault into account on leading New Historicists viewpoint. Foucault defines a discourse as language practice, which is language as it is used by various constituencies (the law, the medicine, the church, etc) for purposes to do power relationships between people. As he posits in The Archaeology of Knowledge that discourse refer to the general domain of all statements, sometimes as an individualizable group of statements, and sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements (Foucault, Archaeology 90). Moreover, Foucault asserts, discourse brought us into accounts of its discursive regularities, [to apprehend] that there are some external and internal exclusions (Foucaults terms) when discourses are being produced, such a complex system of multiple constraints acts which bring discourse into existence. There are some external exclusions overcome the set of discourse procedures, they are: the taboo, the distinction between mad and sane, and the distinction between true and false. In addition, Foucault asserts another four internal exclusions within the discourse procedures, they are: commentary, author, disciplines, and the rarefaction of speaking subject. Thus, discourses should be seen as groups of statements which are associated with institutions, which are authorized in some sense and which have some unity of function at a fundamental level. (Mills 65) Let us merely put this pattern of discourses into a very example we often found daily, which supported Foucault ideas into our society and comprehension. The taboo, wherever it defined, is a kind of prohibition (of statement) that make us difficult or restricted to say something more about it, for example, sexuality, religion, death, etc. The distinction between mad and sane, indeed, considered as universal agreement that only the statements of those considered sane are attended to, the speech of insane is treated as if it did not exist, as if it just the phantasm. This is related closely with the third external exclusion that those in position of authority who are seen as expert are those who can only speak the truth, otherwise, they are considered as insane (for instance), not-proper-person-yet, or any discriminative judgments. Foucault shows in his work how truth is something which is supported materially by a whole range of practices and institutions: universities, government departments, publishing houses, 3

scientific bodies and so on. As Sara Mills posits in his statement: Thus, even if we are asserting something which as far as we know it is the truth, our statements will only be judged to be true if they accord with, and fit in with, all of other statements which are authorized within our society. (58) Commentary regards to literary terms is simply defined as writing about anothers statement. Thus, literary criticism can be considered to be commentary. The idea of commentary is that discourses (statements) will vanish as soon as they have been pronounced, it demonstrates that this kind of speech acts (commentary) bring discourse into existences by its formulation. Author function is (used) as an organizing principle of the texts, when we regard the author as the core of the works meaning then we need to be alert that his/her discourse is something to be interpreted, something to be elaborated into other statements, that is why discourses are sometimes called emergent, it comes out from one (author) presents into others (critics) represents. Disciplines are the other exclusions which Foucault asserted, that everything is reduced into categorical disciplines, the limits which we place on subject areas into disciplinary boundary. For example, if we work within economy, we will generally approach them on a particular range of methods and theoretical tools (e.g. Marxism). Or else we work within the same subject but different perspectives, for example structuralism and colonialism, we will approach them and delimit those subjects in different ways and tools (as if to focus). In fact, these practices/boundaries exclude knowledge which might challenge them, any discourses (e.g. Deconstruction and Orientalism). The rarefaction of speaking subject could be simply illustrated within practical institutions, the government, for instance, along with its hierarchical department there will be unwritten rules which is explained that only those in higher positions of authority who can speak without restraint. He also employs the idea of the episteme to indicate a particular group of knowledge and discourses which operate as the dominant discourses for ideological purposes, which take place from period to period in any given historical epoch. The episteme connects all the separate discourse (religious, scientific, historical, medical, etc) into more or less coherent structure of thought, a discursive formation. Therefore, drawing from one partiality (discourse) to a bigger fragment (episteme), it can always be related back to a bigger unit so as to configure what called archives, which indicates a mode of analysis or methodology of discursive formations and statements, the archeology. This methodology is apparently applied in New Historicism spirit that the contexts of representations are inevitably entailed the appropriations of those discursive practices. Foucault and New Historicism They have reduced liberty, beauty and risk. Liberty, beauty and risk may be reclaimed, if at all, in the techniques that people are able to apply to the shaping of their own existence. This is Foucaults way of becoming not an anti-humanist but a post-humanist, not a writer on the left but a post-revolutionary writer. Foucaults shift 4

has been absorbed into new historicism within academic literary studies, nevertheless, without maintaining the concrete ethical and political interests that drove his work. (During 22) Without maintaining the concrete ethical and political interest that drove Foucaults work, made Foucault as one of the prominent critics of New Historicism. As it mingled with and embraced every aspects of life. This is the appropriation of interdisciplinary framework of New Historicist criticism, on which presented hand-inhand the pragmatic consequences on theoretical fragmentary viewpoints. Some factors at a certain point of time influencing the creation of a text:

New Historicists argue that all levels of society share in the circulation of power through the production and distribution of the most elementary cultural and social text; include literature, laws, and sciences. The New Historicism theory and practice can be simply illustrated below:

Thus, New Historicists encompasses every single thing regarding to its discursive practices. It suggests that it would be clearly defined when we see one work using one literary theory, as if only for tactical convenience in conducting critical discussion. The illustration below may fit the explanation:

The Method

A Work

The Finding(s)

A Theory

B Work

A Theory

C Work We may put anything (theory and literary work), and we may start our own master discourse or our own interest, and it will shows us clearly that the illustration will say the relevancies about our knowledge and truth. Everyone can say and explain about their own truth and understanding, because everything is interrelated and relative. Supposed that we start with several theories and one work in hand, the representation will be clearly enough to endorse the relativity of interpretation. The Method The Finding(s)

A Theory

A Theory

B Theory

A Work(s)

B Theory

C Theory

C Theory

What theory, then, can be applied within this circumscribe? We have these theories in advanced:
1. Moral/philosophical Literary Criticism 2. Historical/biographical Literary Criticism 3. French Structuralism, American New Criticism, Russian Formalism 4. Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism 5. Reader-response Literary Criticism

6. Deconstructive Literary Criticism 7. Marxist Literary Criticism 8. Feminist Literary Criticism 9. Postcolonial Literary Criticism

However, poststructuralist transformed and expanded this viewpoint of theory, as it posits: when common experience in the use or interpretation of language does not accord with what the theory entails, such experience is rejected as unjustified and illusory, or else is accounted an ideologically imposed concealment of the actual operation of the signifying system. Thus, poststructuralists expressly challenge and undertake to destabilize, and in many instances to undermine and subvert what they identify as the foundational assumptions, concepts, procedures and findings in traditional modes of discourse. (Abrams 239)

The Method

A Work

The Finding(s)

New Historicism

B Work

Anything

C Work

The Theory(-ies) Conclusion Foucaults work on discourse and the provision of New Historicist Literary Criticism is exceedingly useful for students, lecturer, and theorists in order to be able to trace the way that we accept as true, how discourse enables us to think differently and analyze the potential answer for the arbitrariness. As Simon During suggests to endorse literature obviously (especially) for those who take Foucaults contribution as seriously as it deserves that those scholars will feel the demand to elaborate and move past it, but perhaps he puts forward that its real challenge lies in the question: can it continue to be used to break down the limits of academic professionalism? and that requires real changes in our methods and topics of study. (22) Nietzsche puts cynicism implied in his lecture Homer and Classical Philology in relation to theoretism that: we may consider antiquity from a scientific point of view; 7

we may try to look at what has happened with the eye of a historian, or to arrange and compare the linguistic forms of ancient masterpieces, to bring them at all events under a morphological law; but we always lose the wonderful creative force, the real fragrance, of the atmosphere of antiquity; we forget that passionate emotion which instinctively drove our meditation and enjoyment back to the Greeks. (Hitchcock 26)

Bibliography
Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms: 7th Ed. USA: Heinle & Heinle, 1999. Budianta, Melanie. Budaya, Sejarah, dan Pasar: New Historicism Dalam Perkembangan Kritik Sastra. University of Indonesia. During, Simon. Foucault and Literature: Towards a Genealogy of Writing. London: Routledge, 2005. Felluga, Dino. "Terms Used by New Historicism." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory.[Nov. 28, 2003]. Purdue U. [Oct. 30, 2008]. <http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/newhistoricism/terms/>. Foucault, Michel. The Archeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Hitchcock, Louise A.. Theory for Classics. New York: Routledge, 2008. Mills, Sara. Michel Foucault. London: Routledge, 2005. Smart, Barry. Michel Foucault: Revised Edition. New York: Routledge, 2002.