The Muses on Their Lunch Hour
3/5
()
About this ebook
As a break from their ordained labors, what might the Muses do on their lunch hour today? This collection of essays uses these figures of ancient legend to explore such modern-day topics as the curious return of myth and ritual in the theories of evolutionary psychologists and much more.
Two themes emerge consistently. The first is that to predict the “next big thing” in literary studies, we should look back at ideas and practices set aside by a previous generation of critics. In the past several decades we have seen the reemergence of—for example—textual editing, biography, character criticism, aesthetics, and philology as “hot” new areas for critical intervention. The second theme expands on this observation, making the case for “cultural forgetting” as the way the arts and humanities renew themselves, both within fields and across them. Although she is never represented in traditional paintings or poetry, a missing Muse—we can call her Amnesia—turns out to be a key figure for the creation of theory and criticism in the arts.
Marjorie Garber
Marjorie Garber is the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of English and of Visual and Environmental Studies at Harvard University. She is the author of several books on Shakespeare, including Shakespeare’s Ghost Writers and Shakespeare After All, as well as of books on cultural topics ranging from dogs and real estate to cross-dressing, bisexuality, the use and abuse of literature, and the place of the arts in academic life. A member of the American Philosophical Society, she was the recipient of a 2019 Guggenheim Fellowship.
Read more from Marjorie Garber
Character: The History of a Cultural Obsession Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Academic Instincts Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Loaded Words Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Patronizing the Arts Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Related to The Muses on Their Lunch Hour
Related ebooks
The Problem with Pleasure: Modernism and Its Discontents Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTheir Other Side: Six American Women and the Lure of Italy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEuripides and His Age Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsStilt Jack Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Swan and Shadow: Yeats's Dialogue with History Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLast Pages: Stories, A Play, Poems, Essays Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Memoirs of Egotism Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Java Head Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSenso(and other stories) Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Samuel Richardson and the theory of tragedy: <i>Clarissa</i>'s caesuras Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Hunger for Aesthetics: Enacting the Demands of Art Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOld Greek Folk Stories Told Anew Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGoodness Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Gale Researcher Guide for: Poetic Form and Its Frustrations: Harryette Mullen, Claudia Rankine, and Terrance Hayes Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDesire Lines: Essays on Art, Poetry & Culture Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUnsun Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsArtificial Generation: Photogenic French Literature and the Prehistory of Cinematic Modernity Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRadical as Reality: Form and Freedom in American Poetry Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMalleable Forms: Selected Essays Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPoems & Poèmes; autres alliances Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBeautiful Waste: Poems by David McComb Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5Five Looks at Elizabeth Bishop Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWeather Inventions Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Flower Can Always Be Changing Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEdith Wharton The Dover Reader Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Glimpses Of The Moon Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Raymond Federman and Samuel Beckett: Voices in the Closet Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWindow Shopping: Cinema and the Postmodern Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Katherine Anne Porter and Mexico: The Illusion of Eden Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBorderlands and Crossroads: Writing the Motherland Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Literary Criticism For You
Man's Search for Meaning: by Viktor E. Frankl | Conversation Starters Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The 48 Laws of Power: by Robert Greene | Conversation Starters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Reader’s Companion to J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5As I Lay Dying Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/512 Rules For Life: by Jordan Peterson | Conversation Starters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Lincoln Lawyer: A Mysterious Profile Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Verity: by Colleen Hoover | Conversation Starters Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Behold a Pale Horse: by William Cooper | Conversation Starters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts.by Brené Brown | Conversation Starters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Killers of the Flower Moon: by David Grann | Conversation Starters Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Great Alone: by Kristin Hannah | Conversation Starters Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Letters to a Young Poet Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of Seduction: by Robert Greene | Conversation Starters Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain | Conversation Starters Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5The Book of Virtues Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5One Hundred Years of Solitude: A Novel by Gabriel Garcia Márquez | Conversation Starters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Gone Girl: A Novel by Gillian Flynn | Conversation Starters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Between the World and Me: by Ta-Nehisi Coates | Conversation Starters Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Reviews for The Muses on Their Lunch Hour
2 ratings1 review
- Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5A collection of Garber’s essays on the humanities and Shakespeare in particular. The distinctive contribution of literary scholarship, she argues, is a way of asking questions “about the way something means, rather than what it means, or even why.” This requires “close and passionate attention to the rich allusiveness, deep ambivalence, and powerful slipperiness that is language in action.” On change over time, she argues that older authors read a “canon,” the works of accomplished predecessors, while more recent ones read “episodically and in a non-linear or non-historicized fashion, in part because there’s so much to read and ‘sampling’ it has no compelling direction.” Twentieth century authors read their peers, not their predecessors. Her discussion of the anxiety of influence, which might also be the anxiety of impotence, is too complex to summarize, but thought-provoking, bringing in big data and the lack of anxiety many authors have about the past. Garber also discusses theater and postmodern theory as linked in their resistance to the idea of a full, complete character, rather than a fragment of identity, and then connects that to “projective identification” in current political thinking and the paranoid style. This discussion leads her, in her allusive way, to the current valorization of STEM fields over the humanities, as colleges’ ways of projecting that which is abject onto a small part of what is in fact the educational project as a whole. The humanities, “already prone to self-doubt and self devaluation (they are ‘useless,’ they are ‘old,’ they are ‘light,’ they are speculative rather than empirical, they take too long to produce degrees, they are hermetic rather than accessible), become readily complicit in the fantasy of the university that none of these attributes attach to it.” She ends with discussing “Shakespeare” as the representative of these attitudes towards the humanities. Shakespeare is now understood as themes and plots, not language; the plays are “owned” by the humanities in general, not English departments. Garber urges a variant of “strategic essentialism” for the humanities, what she calls “strategic generalization”—affirmatively using the power of the best broad-based lecture courses (like hers, of which I am a veteran) to defend the value of the humanities. The Shakespeare lecture has, she contends, for a century been a central, memorable place for lectures and thus it is a site from which we can defend the pedagogical project of the humanities at large. (Garber recognizes that her history is a history of Harvard Shakespeare lectures, not community college or other lectures, but she sees it as a model to aspire to.) Some best practices of the past, she argues, should be understood as current best practices as well: “asking students to read the text twice through before, or perhaps instead of, reading critical essays; the memorization and recitation of passages; vivid classroom performance (by the instructor and not just the students); and indeed philology, if by that we might mean, today, among other things, an acquaintance with word history and derivation through the OED.” Grabbing onto the podium is literally a way to retake prominence in the coversation about good education. Today’s students “are often engaged by performance, more so sometimes than they are willing to admit. When performance is combined with personal commitment, an intimate knowledge of the work under discussion, and a manifest respect for intellectual exchange, the effects can be exhilarating. Add Shakespeare to the mix, and the odds for success increase, as it were, dramatically.”
Book preview
The Muses on Their Lunch Hour - Marjorie Garber
THE MUSES ON THEIR LUNCH HOUR
The Muses on Their Lunch Hour
MARJORIE GARBER
Copyright © 2017 Marjorie Garber
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Excerpts from Burnt Norton
from FOUR QUARTETS by T. S. Eliot. Copyright 1936 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company; Copyright © renewed 1964 by T. S. Eliot. Copyright 1941 by T. S. Eliot; Copyright © renewed 1969 by Esme Valerie Eliot. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Fordham University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Fordham University Press also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Visit us online at www.fordhampress.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Garber, Marjorie B., author.
Title: The Muses on their lunch hour / Marjorie Garber.
Description: First edition. | New York : Fordham University Press, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016027233 | ISBN 9780823273720 (hardback) | ISBN 9780823273737 (paper)
Subjects: | BISAC: LITERARY CRITICISM / General. | SOCIAL SCIENCE / Popular Culture. | EDUCATION / Higher.
Classification: LCC AC8.5 .G37 2017 | DDC 814/.54—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016027233
Printed in the United States of America
19 18 17 5 4 3 2 1
First edition
For Helen Tartar
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Preface: The Muses on Their Lunch Hour
1. Asking Literary Questions
2. Ovid, Now and Then
3. Over the Influence
4. Fig Leaves
5. Baggage Screening
6. Identity Theft
7. Czech Mates: When Shakespeare Met Kafka
8. Occupy Shakespeare
9. Shakespeare 451
Notes
Index
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the many friends and colleagues who have helped me at various stages of the composition and editing of these essays. Bill Germano was once again a marvelous reader, critic, and co-conspirator in the shaping of individual pieces and of the book as a whole. I owe him not only my warmest thanks but also the best dinner we can find. William Ira Bennett generously read a number of the essays, and made many valuable suggestions that have been incorporated into the text. Jonathan Culler offered essential advice and encouragement at a crucial time. Calista McRae, Sabrina Sadique, and Kailey Bennett provided key editorial assistance at various stages of manuscript preparation. My editor at Fordham University Press, Tom Lay, has been unfailingly helpful and responsive, as have Eric Newman, Nancy Rapoport, and others at Fordham. I thank them for all their interest and attention to detail.
A few essays have been previously published, and I am grateful to the editors of the publications where they first appeared for their excellent comments and meticulous editing: to Tom Mitchell and Jay Williams at Critical Inquiry for Ovid, Now and Then
(Critical Inquiry 40, no. 1, Autumn 2013) and Over the Influence
(Critical Inquiry 42, no. 4, Summer 2016); Renate Ferro, Mieke Bal, and Michelle Williams Gamaker, the editors of Saying It (London: Occasional Papers, 2012) for Baggage Screening.
Asking Literary Questions
first appeared in my Manifesto for Literary Studies (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003); my thanks to the Simpson Center for the Humanities for permission to reprint it here.
This book is dedicated to the memory of Helen Tartar, a remarkable editor and supporter of the humanities, with whom I initially mapped out the topics and contents of this collection. Helen’s untimely death was a profound loss to the field, to the profession, and to her innumerable friends and admirers. It was an honor, and a gift, to have worked with her.
PREFACE: THE MUSES ON THEIR LUNCH HOUR
Nine essays. Nine musings. On Dasher, on Dancer, on Calliope and Erato. Up then, Melpomene.
What do the Muses do on their lunch hour? Read trash novels? Feed the ducks (or in their case, perhaps, the swans)? Attend what used to be called improving
lectures and are now called Public Humanities events? These Muses, the ones I’m speaking of, spend some time in—of course—museums,
and also in libraries, and maybe even these days in book clubs and cultural media. But they are also Ladies Who Lunch. And when they lunch they talk.
There weren’t always nine of them, if we are to believe Pausanias (and who am I to contradict Pausanias?). The first three, the original Muses (a phrase that sounds like the title of a pop group) represented singing,
practicing,
and remembering
—three categories that would function very effectively for today’s literary and performing arts.¹ But the job got bigger (Literature! Dance! Music! Drama! Science! Geography! Philosophy! Mathematics!) and they took on more help. It was only in the late Hellenistic period and in Roman times that the Muses became so closely identified with particular kinds of poetry and art, what we might today more blandly call the humanities.
Renaissance emblem book writers linked the various Muses to props and gadgets that would clearly identify them, making each of the nine as recognizable to Renaissance and Neoclassical readers as one of today’s superheroes, or the costume characters of Disneyworld and Times Square. Calliope, the muse of epic poetry, is pictured with a writing tablet; Clio, the muse of history, with a scroll; Melpomene, the muse of tragedy, with a tragic mask; Thalia, the muse of comedy and pastoral, with a comic mask; Euterpe, the muse of elegiac poetry, with a flute; Terpsichore, the muse of dance, with a lyre; Erato, the muse of lyric poetry, with a cithara; Polyhymnia, the muse of sacred poetry, with a veil; Urania, the muse of astronomy, with a globe and compass. Great for painters and sculptors; useful, too, for poets who invoked them.
But do today’s cultural observers know the difference between a cithara and a lyre, or the significance of a scroll versus a writing tablet? And really—do we need so many muses of poetry now? Epic, elegiac, pastoral, sacred, lyric, plus two kinds of drama? This nine, like the justices of the Supreme Court, might do with a little updating. Shouldn’t there be a Muse of Fashion? A Muse of Architecture? A Muse of Social Media? A Symphonic Muse, an Operatic Muse, a Bluegrass Muse, a Hip Hop Muse, a Muse of readymades, a Muse of found objects, a Muse of musing? An A-Muse (pictured with an amuse bouche)? A B-muse, with a bewildered expression? And what about a he-Muse, or what would once have been called a male Muse, on the model of male model, or male nurse? We need a trans-Muse, for sure. Almost all art these days is transmuted, the work of what perhaps should be called transmusion.
And about that number nine.
John Lennon and J. D. Salinger notwithstanding, nine is not an inevitable number.² Writers from William Shakespeare to Anne Bradstreet to Anthony Trollope to Robert Lowell have invoked, or joked about, a Tenth Muse (Shakespeare’s Tenth Muse, in Sonnet 38, is his beloved);³ Bradstreet’s Tenth Muse is the title of her 1650 book of poems The Tenth Muse Lately Sprung Up in America; Trollope’s is the goddess of journalism (the tenth Muse who now governs the periodical press
⁴); Lowell’s, in a poem called The Tenth Muse,
is Sloth. Sloth may do it for a poet—or may have done so half a century ago. But the Tenth Muse missing from the (not so) original nine, I think, is a slightly different creature from Shakespeare’s other, or Bradstreet’s self, or Lowell’s creative Deadly Sin.
The Muses are the daughters of Mnemosyne, Memory. Zeus will have had a role in their conception, I admit, but these goddesses take after their mother. Without memory, learning and the arts cannot flourish. Thus, literary and art history; thus, history tout court; thus, chronology and genealogy; thus influence.
But there is a rebellious outlier sister, too, equally essential to the history and culture of the liberal arts, and her name is Amnesia. Her name means forgetfulness,
and her gift is the gift of forgetting.
The essays in this collection are all in some way provoked by the practice—deliberate or inadvertent—of cultural forgetting, whether what is forgotten
(and therefore reinvented) is a figure of speech, or the history of criticism, or the teaching of Shakespeare, or the question of plagiarism, or a favorite children’s book.
Nine essays. Nine musings.
Muse as a verb has a widely divergent sense development,
from ponder, reflect
to waste time, idle, loaf around,
to gape, stare, wonder, marvel,
to the Walloon murmur, hum, growl
and the fifteenth century hold the snout up, sniff about.
⁵ The OED says curtly that [a]ttempts to connect the sense ‘to ponder, reflect’: with classical Latin musa, Muse, n., are unconvincing.
But perhaps false etymology is another art form inspired by the goddess Amnesia.
She’ll be showing up, even if uninvited, at that lunch with her sisters—unless she forgets, which is very likely. In which case their conversation is likely to be all about her.
CHAPTER 1
Asking Literary Questions
The fortunes of literary studies have gone up and down during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries with the same volatility as the stock market. And like the stock market, the market in literary studies can be charted with confidence only with the benefit of hindsight.
English studies held the comfortable middle-ground of the humanities in U.S. and Anglophile/Anglophone universities through the middle part of the twentieth century. The combined heritage of belletrism and the little magazines
imparted a certain gloss of creativity and artiness to the practice of reading and writing about poems, novels, plays, and what was then often described as intellectual prose
—works like Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy, for example, or Samuel Johnson’s Lives of the Poets. Practices such as textual explication, often cognate with, or imported from, the study of other European languages and literatures, were partnered with literary history, thematic criticism, and the study of images, tropes, and what was called literary influence—the indebtedness and echoes of one literary work to another—whether such influence was deemed serene or anxious.
Intertextuality, a term borrowed from French, offered an adjustment to the question of influence by seeing it as a two-way street, and also by emphasizing the agency of the text over that of the controlling author.
Texts could converse with one another whether or not the author was consciously speaking—or listening. The conscious/unconscious borderline was a natural topic for scholars steeped in the heritage of romanticism, whether or not they acknowledged the pervasive influence of Sigmund Freud’s writings on the development of twentieth-century art and culture.
An infusion of exciting and provocative theoretical writing, again largely continental in origin, coming to the United States from France, Germany, and the UK, made literary studies
—or, more properly then, literary theory
—the star, and also in some views the bad child, of humanistic work in the 1970s and 1980s. Intellectual practices such as semiotics, phenomenology, and structuralism changed the way critics and scholars read literature, and literature
itself changed with the onset of lively debates about the literary canon, cultural inclusiveness, and popular culture. Whether described under the heading of poststructuralism, deconstruction, or postmodernity, the work of European writers such as Roland Barthes, Pierre Bourdieu, Raymond Williams, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault shifted attention to issues of text and agency.
A phrase like the linguistic turn
(later transformed into the cultural turn
) signaled a high-water mark for the prestige of this particular mode of literariness in the late twentieth century. As Lynn Hunt and Victoria Bonnell note in their introduction to Beyond the Cultural Turn (1999), the publication of two key works in 1973—Hayden White’s Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe and Clifford Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays—established the importance of techniques derived from literary studies for the disciplines of history and cultural anthropology. White’s book uses terms like trope and emplotment to argue for a deep structure of thought that organized historical research at the linguistic level, working with categories derived from the literary scholars Kenneth Burke and Northrop Frye. Geertz’s idea of a thick description
of cultures presented symbols, artifacts, social arrangements, and rituals as texts
that could be read as a consistent story, or interpretation
—a word itself grounded in literary study. The powerful influence of Geertz has naturalized the phrase interpretation of cultures
so that it no longer offers any hint of the jostling of disciplines.
White introduced his study with a strong claim about the relationship of history to language that established the first as dependent upon the second: In this theory I treat the historical work as what it most manifestly is: a verbal structure in the form of a narrative prose discourse.
Histories, he maintained, contain a deep structural content which is generally poetic, and specifically linguistic, in nature, and which serves as the precritically accepted paradigm of what a distinctively ‘historical’ explanation should be.
¹ His table of contents was explicitly indebted to Frye’s structuralist account of genre, with chapters on topics such as Michelet: Historical Realism as Romance,
Ranke: Historical Realism as Comedy,
Toqueville: Historical Realism as Tragedy,
and Burckhardt: Historical Realism as Satire.
The culture of a people is an ensemble of texts,
wrote Geertz in his celebrated essay on the Balinese cockfight. Such an extension of the notion of a text beyond written material, and even beyond verbal, is, though metaphorical, not of course all that novel. The interpretatio naturae tradition of the middle ages, which, culminating in Spinoza, attempted to read nature as Scripture, the Nietszchean effort to treat value systems as glosses on the will to power (or the Marxian one to treat them as glosses on property relations), and the Freudian replacement of the enigmatic text of the manifest dream with the plain one of the latent, all offer precedents, if not equally recommendable ones. But the idea remains theoretically undeveloped, and the more profound corollary, so far as anthropology is concerned, that cultural forms can be treated as texts, as imaginative works built out of social materials, has yet to be systematically exploited.²
"A deep structural content which is generally poetic, and specifically linguistic;
An extension of the notion of the text beyond written material, and even beyond verbal. Both White and Geertz found the models of linguistic and literary analysis instrumental and clarifying as they grappled with fresh ways of understanding the methodologies of their own disciplines. Indeed, as such passages from their work make evident, these scholars would come to argue that history and anthropology were, in a way, modes of reading and writing.
As in more familiar exercises in close reading, Geertz writes in his concluding paragraph to the cockfight essay,
one can start anywhere in a culture’s repertoire of forms and end up anywhere else. Later, he would sum this up in the phrase
the Text analogy, which, when linked with
interpretive theory," allows for new reconfigurations of social thought.³
The idea of a master discourse
has fallen into disuse and even into disrepute, but if there is any discourse that holds the mastery in these excerpts from two groundbreaking works of cultural theory, it is literary studies.
How quickly we forget. For in the years that followed these brilliant appropriations from literary studies, the appropriators were themselves re-appropriated by literary critics and established in the rhetorical position of mastery. New Historicists Steven Mullaney and Stephen Greenblatt both invoke Geertz’s methodology. Employing a kind of ‘thick description’ in Clifford Geertz’s sense of the phrase,
Mullaney writes, I examine diverse sources and events, cultural as well as literary, in an effort to situate the popular stage within the larger symbolic economy of Elizabethan and Jacobean England.
⁴ Greenblatt cites a passage from Geertz comparing Elizabethan and Majapahit royal progresses at a key turning point in his own essay on Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays.⁵ Literary critic J. Hillis Miller, a specialist in the British nineteenth-century novel, lists White as an important figure in the development of modern theories of narrative. The inclusion of Hayden White,
he writes, is testimony to the fact that in recent years history writing as well as fictional narratives have been addressed by narrative theorists.
⁶
Authority in literary critical—and literary theoretical—writings began, increasingly, to derive from such voices. Not only White and Geertz, but anthropologist Mary Douglas (Purity and Danger), sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, cultural historian Robert Darnton, and others were cited in argument and epigraph, and a new vocabulary became the common medium of exchange: "Culture, practice, relativism, truth, discourse, narrative, microhistory, and various other terms," note Hunt and Bonnell, were in general use across many of the social science disciplines. But these same terms became words to conjure within literary studies as well, together with others that also originated in social-scientific or scientific disciplines: genealogy, archaeology, agency, paradigm.
Not long after their eager engagement with the linguistic turn,
historians and others drew back, themselves returning to an emphasis on empirical data, sometimes in conjunction with theoretical arguments, and sometimes to trump them. In a book pointedly called Telling the Truth About History, Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob noted the difficulties of aligning postmodern theory with historical practice.
If postmodern cultural anthropology is any guide, the concern with developing causal explanations and social theories would be replaced in a postmodernist history with a focus on self-reflexivity and on problems of literary construction: how does the historian as author construct his or her text, how is the illusion of authenticity produced, what creates a sense of truthfulness to the facts and a warranty of closeness to past reality (or the truth-effect
as it is sometimes called)? The implication is that the historian does not in fact capture the past in faithful fashion but rather, like the novelist, gives the appearance of doing so.⁷
The authors were at pains to say that they did not reject all the ideas of postmodernist thinkers, noting that the text analogy and various cultural and linguistic approaches had helped to disengage historians from some other models, such as Marxism and other economic and social determinisms, while also puncturing the shield of science behind which reductionism often hid.
But linguistic determinism
also presents a problem, they argued. And because postmodernism throws into question the modern narrative form,
key methodologies for history-writing, including historiography, narrative, and storytelling, were all subject to critique. Yet historians have to tell stories, they claimed, in order to make sense of the past, as well as to reach toward practical political solutions for the future. So these authors, all themselves historians, suggested that there was a point at which members of the historical profession, however initially energized by the likes of Derrida and Foucault, had to part company with them, to rejoin the referent and leave the play of the signifier, or to leave the text
and rejoin the world.
In fact, they wrote in 1994, a similar kind of crisis that foreshadows a turning away from the postmodern view can be seen in almost every field of knowledge or learning today.
⁸
A few key observations might be made about the foregoing. First, that it ties the linguistic turn
(quickly broadened, to accommodate anthropology, into the cultural turn
) to postmodern theory, thus eliding the linguistic, the literary, the cultural-anthropological and the philosophical. Second, that it ultimately sets aside postmodernism as antifoundationalist and thus is likely to pose questions rather than seek solutions: In place of plot and character, history and individuality, perhaps even meaning itself, the most thoroughgoing postmodernists would offer an ‘interminable pattern without meaning,’ a form of writing closer to modern music and certain postmodern novels.
⁹ And, third, that it generalizes a crisis
—supplementary to the fabled crisis in the humanities
—which led, or would lead, or was then currently leading, participants in almost every field of knowledge or learning
to turn away from the postmodern view, and thus from the temporary hegemony of humanistic and literary critical studies.
The return of the empirical
after the heady attractions of the ungrounded theoretical
had its effects upon literary scholars as well as upon historians, anthropologists, and sociologists. Inevitably, perhaps, chroniclers began to contemplate the historic turn.
The editor of a volume on The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences noted that there had been a proliferation of historical emphases across the disciplines: the ‘new historicism’ in literary and legal theory, a revived interest in ‘history in philosophy,’ a historically oriented ‘new institutionalism’ and other historical approaches in political science and economics, ‘ethnohistory’ in anthropology,
and so on.¹⁰ Mullaney offered in his contribution to this volume a view of the place of literary study that conveyed a sharp difference from where it might have been presumed to be in the 1970s and 1980s:
The literary is thus conceived neither as a separate and separable aesthetic realm nor as a mere product of culture—a reflection of ideas and ideologies produced elsewhere—but as one realm among many for the negotiation and production of social meaning, of historical subjects, and of the systems of power that at once enable and constrain those subjects.¹¹
Manifest in this compact assertion was a suspicion of, and a demotion of, the separable aesthetic
and the mere product of culture
; the profession of literature, and the texts that were its objects, were to be players in social change. Where the Telling the Truth historians had reflected on the potential disappearance of meaning itself
under the lens of the kind of postmodern theory that had once, and recently, dominated literary study, Mullaney, a New Historicist critic of the early modern period, declared literary study’s investment in the negotiation and production of social meaning.
A stranger to these internecine conversations might be pardoned for some bewilderment: If one were to delete the first two words of Mullaney’s statement and offer it as a version of the old Droodles
game of fill-in-the-blanks, it is not so very clear what entity or discipline an outsider would think was under discussion.
Literature is thus conceived neither as a separate and separable aesthetic realm nor as a mere product of culture—a reflection of ideas and ideologies produced elsewhere—but as one realm among many for the negotiation and production of social meaning, of historical subjects, and of the systems of power that at once enable and constrain those subjects.
The literary
had changed, and changed substantially, at least in historicist eyes. The literary
in this avatar also considered itself one realm among many,
not in any privileged place of influence or taste-making. As the century drew to a close, the question of literary study’s place in the intellectual and academic hierarchy was an unsettled matter. Even literally. Suddenly, the word material
was everywhere (to be contrasted, presumably, with its antonym formal,
but also with the complicatedly intellectual and highly verbal playing fields of theory). Material culture
and the material book
were phrases to conjure with, as book series on art and material culture,
design and material culture,
American material culture and folklore,
and gender and material culture
proliferated. Books on The Body as Material Culture, Children on Material Culture, Chimpanzee Material Culture, and Cognition and Material Culture crowded the bookshops—and these titles are only the briefest of selections from the B’s and C’s. Literary critics, who once preferred to be called literary theorists,
were now, increasingly, scholars of material culture.
Furthermore, the