By the 1990s, New Historicism and its main progenitor Stephen Greenblatt rose to the attention of scholars worldwide, and it is now a widely accepted theory.
If one can speak of a theory, since New Historicism has often been accused of lacking a distinct theoretical program. However, this did not remain the sole critical reproach New Historicism had to deal with. As with many a radically new idea, the approach provoked discontent as well. Inaccuracy and “armchair historicism” were among the accusations New Historicism had to cope with. Nevertheless, its popularity increased, and it is well nigh impossible to imagine literary studies today without it.
Despite its importance and popularity, the New Historicism has to this day successfully refused to be thoroughly theorized and classified, to be forced into a strict set of rules. It therefore remains a difficult task to label anything truly “New Historicist”, as even New Historicists themselves are reluctant to give a subsumable definition of the concept.The principal question of this thesis: Is New Historicism a viable theory after all? Despite the international acclaim it has earned, does it keep its promises? Has it revolutionized modern literary studies?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism
2.1 Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism
2.2 Styles and Techniques of New Historicism
3. Criticizing New Historicism
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Objectives and Research Focus
The primary objective of this paper is to examine the viability of New Historicism as a theoretical framework in literary studies by analyzing the foundational principles and methodology of Stephen Greenblatt. The work explores whether a movement that explicitly resists systematization can effectively be defined and practiced, while critically assessing the challenges, common critiques, and the unique stylistic devices associated with this critical approach.
- Theoretical exploration of New Historicism and its resistance to formal classification.
- Analysis of Stephen Greenblatt's methodology, specifically the concept of "culture as a text."
- Examination of stylistic techniques in New Historicist writing, including chiasmus, figurality, and hypertextuality.
- Critical review of major counterarguments, such as concerns regarding "armchair historicism" and the lack of academic rigor.
- Evaluation of the influence and lasting impact of New Historicism on modern literary and historical studies.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism
The most promising source for information on this topic must quite unsurprisingly be its first advocate, the founding father of New Historicism, Stephen Greenblatt. It was not until as late as 2000 that Greenblatt, in collaboration with his colleague and fellow New Historicist Catherine Gallagher, thought of setting down some theoretical concept. In the introduction to their aptly titled book “Practicing New Historicism” , Greenblatt expressed his astonishment at what had become of “his” creation:
“When years ago we first noticed in the annual job listing of the Modern Language Association that an English department was advertising for a specialist in new historicism, our response was incredulity. How could something that didn't really exist, that was only a few words gesturing toward a new interpretative practice, have become a 'field'? When did it happen and how could we not have noticed? If this was indeed a field, who could claim expertise in it and in what would such expertise consist? Surely, we of all people should know something of the history and the principles of new historicism, but what we knew above all was that it (or perhaps we) resisted systematization.”
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the core problem of connecting literature and history and outlines the emergence of New Historicism as a theoretical approach that defies traditional systematization.
2. Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism: This section investigates Greenblatt's own perspective on his theory, highlighting the pivotal notion of "culture as a text" and the inherent difficulty in providing a rigid definition for the movement.
2.1 Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism: This subchapter focuses on Greenblatt's collaboration with Catherine Gallagher, exploring their reflections on how New Historicism evolved into a recognized, yet conceptually elusive, academic field.
2.2 Styles and Techniques of New Historicism: This chapter utilizes Sonja Laden's work to analyze specific literary strategies such as chiasmus, figurality, and hypertextuality that characterize the writing style of "poetic" New Historicists.
3. Criticizing New Historicism: This chapter examines the major discontents and criticisms raised against New Historicism, focusing on Paul Cantor's critique of its stylistic "slipperiness" and its alleged lack of academic standards.
4. Conclusion: The author summarizes the findings, asserting that despite its inherent contradictions and the impossibility of simple replication, New Historicism remains a viable and uniquely demanding approach to literary studies.
5. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources, including books and articles, used to conduct this examination.
Keywords
New Historicism, Stephen Greenblatt, Literary Theory, History, Culture as a Text, Poetic New Historicism, Chiasmus, Figurality, Hypertextuality, Paul Cantor, Renaissance Studies, Literary Criticism, Self-Fashioning, Discourse Analysis, Academic Standards.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper fundamentally investigates the viability and theoretical validity of New Historicism, specifically as represented in the work of Stephen Greenblatt.
What are the core thematic areas discussed in the text?
The text focuses on the intersection of literature and history, the methodology of "culture as a text," the stylistic devices of New Historicist writing, and the resulting critical debates.
What is the primary research question?
The primary research question is: "Is New Historicism a viable theory?" The author seeks to determine if it maintains its promises and if it has successfully transformed modern literary studies.
Which scientific approach does the author employ?
The author uses a qualitative, analytical approach by examining primary texts like "Practicing New Historicism" and critical essays by scholars such as Sonja Laden and Paul Cantor.
What specific topics are covered in the main section of the book?
The main sections cover the evolution of New Historicism, the definition (or lack thereof) of the field, the stylistic strategies of its practitioners, and a detailed critical response to the movement's methods.
How would you summarize the work in a few keywords?
The most important keywords include New Historicism, Stephen Greenblatt, literary history, cultural text, methodology, and academic criticism.
What does the author mean by "poetic" New Historicism?
The author refers to a specific subset of New Historicists, including Greenblatt, who employ literary techniques and sophisticated, metadiscursive prose to construct their historical narratives.
How does the author address the criticism of "armchair historicism"?
The author acknowledges that the theory's lack of a rigid program can lead to "sloppy" imitations, but defends the rigorous and demanding nature of genuine New Historicist practice.
Why does the author consider New Historicism "unrepeatable"?
The author argues that New Historicism is not a rigid methodology that can be learned from a manual, but a practice that must be learned through the actual process of interpreting texts and historical data.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Sebastian Langner (Autor:in), 2011, Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism. A Viable Theory?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/281414
