Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories 二十世纪西方文艺批评理论Zhu Gang朱刚上海外语教育出版社，20012005年第四次印刷IntroductionThis sourcebook comes out of a need for basic texts of the twentieth century Western literary and cultural theories. The current volume is meant solely for pedagogical purposes, i.e., for graduate courses on contemporary Western literary theory. Each unit forms a critical “school” (in the broad sense), starting with a critical survey of the school under discussion. For each critic, the sourcebook provides a sketchy introduction, a selection of the critic‟s work, some necessary notes to the texts (reduced to the minimum for a smooth reading.), followed by study questions based on the essay selected for better understanding and class discussion, and finally books and articles recommended for further reading.The book chooses to examine in a roughly chronological order some major Western critical theories of the twentieth century, from Russian Formalism in the early decades to, for instance, the Cultural Studies in the nineties. In addition to a close reading of some carefully selected texts and a survey of current knowledge in this field, the course seeks to introduce students to the major approaches to literature, to show what kind of knowledge is involved and what forms of inquiry exist in this area, how different means of analysis are used, and what their strengths and weaknesses are.The chief objective of the book is to raise the students‟ awareness of the imp ortance of being critical and of the critical theory, discuss with them some influential speculations on and critical approaches to literature, and use them in textual analysis. It will concentrate on a number of questions, such as the locus of literary meaning, the status of the text, the role of the reader, the function of language in literary exegesis, the referentiality of literature, and the relation of literature and society. These questions are of general interest to the students of literature, and of special help to MA students working on their dissertation.The selection of critics (the so-called “canon”) has been made on the bases of their representative character and their availability in Chinese university libraries. The works selected are among the most discussed by Chinese literary scholars and are helpful to students in interpreting literary texts. The assortment of critics into schools is unavoidably arbitrary. Barthes, for instance, should be more properly put under “Deconstruction”, and Said may also belong to “Cultural Studies.” The best policy is to pay more attention to the ideas expressed in the essays than to the labels assigned them. Owing to limits of space, the selections are too short, and the notes too scanty, to ensure good understanding. It is recommended that MA students who are going to write on theory or Ph.D. students of literature read the original work in its entirety.To understand our field of inquiry, a concise, tentative definition of terminology is necessary at the outset, however insufficient any such definition may seem to be today.First and foremost, what is literature? The question is extremely difficult to answer since literature seems to include everything verbally or orally recorded. But this is an important question because contemporary critical theory started with efforts at such a definition. That definition is a negative one: i.e., what is it that sets literature apart from non-literature? In other words, contemporary literary theory started with identifying specific qualities that make a piece of work literary, and all contemporary approaches to literature are answers, in one way or another, to the question of what literature is.Next, what is “theory”? As a field of intellectual inquiry, theory may be taken to be “a body of generalizations and principles, or an ideal or hypothetical set of facts and circumstances, developed in association with practice in a field of activity and forming its content as an intellectual discipline.” In other words, “theory” deals with things on abstract level (generalizations and principles), not in their concrete forms, though this abstraction is based on the actual practices. For instance, literary “theory”develops out of interpretation of concrete works of art. I t is an independent “discipline” because it has its own nature, scope of investigation, and methodology, though it is more and more difficult to identify what these really are. Most importantly, “theory” invites criticism and inquiry, itself being “ideal or hypothetical.”What is literary theory then? Simply put, it is “speculative discourse on literature and on practice of literature.” It may include reflections on or analysis of general principles and categories of literature, such as its nature and function; its relation to other aspects of culture; the purpose, procedures and validity of literary criticism; relation of literary text to their authors and historical contexts; or the production of literary meaning.But what is the difference between “literary theory” and “literary criticism?” A most concise answer would be: one is concerned with “theory” while the other “practice.” Wellek in fact defines “criticism” as “study of concrete works of art.” “Criticism,” we might say, includes “describing, interpreting and evaluating the meaning and effect that literary works have for competent but not necessarily academic readers.” Since “criticism” deals with the experience of reading, it is “not exclusively academic, but often personal and subjective.”A similar though in many ways different concept is aesthetics. The discipline is concerned with literature from a “philosophical” point of view, stressing its relation to the general concepts of art, beauty and value. It has limited relevance to practic al literary study or “criticism,” but has strong affinities with “critical theory” as both tend to take the work of art as “autonomous” and look for its specificities.“Scholarship” is a somewhat different concept. It goes beyond the reader‟s experienc e by referring to factors external to this experience, such as the genesis of the work or its textual transmission. It is often too positivistic to be “theoretical,” asking for detachment and rigor of a specialist.Finally, “critical theory” in this bo ok is used in its broad sense, an umbrella term for various critical approaches to literature and culture in the twentieth century. Its narrower sense refers to the Frankfurt School tradition, seen generally as “responses to the specifically emancipatory i nterest that enters the order of aesthetic and social pracitces.” It is to be noted that much of Frankfurt tradition has merged with recent “literary theory” as the “generic term” when the latter becomes more and more “critical” in nature.Some suggestions for how to read critical theory:i. Always keep at an arm‟s length from the theorists and theories. Always read with a critical eye open.ii. Always think of theory in relation to concrete literary works of art and try to use theory in textual interpretation.iii. Always think of theory in terms of the social reality that has produced it. Marxist perspective in this respect turns out to be helpful.The following reference books are recommended for the course. They are anthologies where more relevant texts are to be found, and introductory works on the theories to be discussed. These books may also appear in the “Further Reading.”Anthologies:Adams, Hazard ed. (1971), Critical Theory Since Plato.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Adams, Hazard & Leroy Searle (1986). Critical Theory Since 1965, Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida,Bate, Walter Jackson ed., Criticism: The Major Texts, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego etc., 1970Borklund, Elmer, Contemporary Literary Critics, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publishers Limited, Hong Kong, 1982Davis, Robert Con eds. (1998) Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: LongmanFokkema, D.W. & Elrud Kunne-Ibsch (1977). Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century. London: C. Hurst & CompanyHandy, William J. & Westbrook, Max eds., Twentieth Century Criticism, The Major Statesments, The Free Press, New York, 1974Kaplan, Charles ed., Criticism: The Major Statements, St. Martin‟s Press, New York, 1975Latimer, Dan ed., Contemporary Critical Theory, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego etc.Lodge, David (1972). 20th Century Literary Criticism, London: Longman Group Ltd.Newton, K. M. (1988). Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, A Reader, London: MacMillan Education Ltd.---(1992) Theory into Practice, A Reader in Modern Literary Criticism. NY: St. Martin‟s P.Rivkin, Lulie & Michael Ryan eds. (1998) Literary Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Trilling, Lionel ed., Literary Criticism, An Introductory Reader, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York etc., 1970Introduction:Culler, Jonathan (1997). Literary Theory. Oxford & New York: Oxford UPEagleton, Terry (1985). Literary Theory, An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.Jefferson, Ann & David Robey eds. (1986) Modern Literary Theory---A Comparative Introduction. New Jersey: Barnes & Noble BooksLeitch, Vincent B (1988). American Literary Criticism, from the 30s to the 80s. New York: Columbia UPSelden, Raman (1989). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. New York & London: Harvester WheatsheafSpikes, Michael P. (1997) Understanding Contemporary American Literary theory. Columbia: U of South Carolina PWebster, Roger (1996). Studying Literary Theory, An Introduction. London & New York: Arnold I would like to express my gratitude to the MA and Ph.D. students in my class all these years for their valuable contribution to this book. My thanks go in particular to Ms Zhu Xuefeng, Miss Tang Xiaomen and Miss Shen Xiaoni for their support in the preparation of the manuscript.Z. G.School of Foreign StudiesNanjing UniversityJan. 2001Contents PageIntroduction i Unit 1 Russian Formalism 11. V. Shklovsky, Art as Technique 32. J. Mukarovsky, Standard Language and Poetic Language 93. B. Eik enbaum, The Theory of the “Formal Method” 134. L. Trotsky, The Formalist School of Poetry and Marxism 17 Unit 2 Anglo-American New Criticism 231. T. S. Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent 252. W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. and M.C. Beardsley, The Intentional Fallacy 293. The Affective Fallacy 324. C. Brooks, Irony as a Principle of Structure 345. A. Tate, Tension in Poetry 38 Unit 3 Marxist Criticism 431. T. Eagleton, Literature and History 452. G. Lukács, Critical Realism and Socialist Realism 543. R. Williams: Determination 574. F. Jameson, Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act 615. The Prison-House of Language 65 Unit 4 Psychoanalytical Criticism 691. S. Freud, The Structures of the Mind 712. The Oedipus Complex 783. The Interpretation of Dreams 824. Creative Writers and Daydreaming 845. L. Trilling, Freud and Literature 886. J. Lacan, The Mirror Stage 91 Unit 5 Myth and Archetypal Criticism 961. C. G. Jung, The Principal Archetypes 982. The Concept of the Collective Unconscious 1023. N. Frye, The Archetypes of Literature 106Unit 6 Structuralism 1121. F. de Saussure, Nature of the Linguistic Sign 1142. C. Lévi-Strauss, The Structural Study of Myth 1173. R. Barthes, The Structuralist Activity 1214. T. Todorov, Definition of Poetics 125 Unit 7 Reader Criticism 1291. W. Iser, The Act of Reading 1312. H.R. Jauss, Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory 1353. S. Fish, Why No One‟s Afraid of Wolfgang Iser 1384. N.N. Holland, Reading and Identity 1415. D. Bleich, The Subjective Character of Critical Interpretation 145 Unit 8 Deconstruction 1501. J. Derrida, Structure, Sign, and Play 1522. Différance 1553. J. Hillis Miller, The Critic as Host 1584. A. P. Debicki, New Criticism and Deconstruction 1635. M. H. Abrams, The Deconstructive Angel 166 Unit 9 Feminist Criticism 1701. T. Moi, Sexual/ Textual Politics 1722. E. Showalter, A Literature of Their Own 1763. Representing Ophelia 1804. J. Kristeva, About Chinese Women 185 Unit 10 New Historicism 1921. M. Foucault, The Structures of Punishment 1942. S. Greenblatt, The Improvisation of Power 1973. J. Tompkins, Sentimental Power 2014. N. Armstrong and L. Tennenhouse, Representing Violence 206 Unit 11 Post-Colonial Studies 2121. A. Gramsci, The Prison Notebooks 2142. F. Fanon, Black Skin White Masks 2173. E. Said, Orientalism 2204. G. Viswanathan, Masks of Conquest 224 Unit 12 Gender Studies 2301. V. L. Bullough, Homosexuality, A History 2322. A. Jagose, Queer Theory, An Introduction 2363. M. Wittig, One Is Not Born a Woman 2394. E. K. Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet 2435. J. Butler, Gender Trouble 246Unit 13 Cultural Studies 2521. R. Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy 2542. S. Hall, Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms 2573. R. Williams, The Future of Cultural Studies 2614. M. Gottdiener, Disneyland: A Utopian Urban Space 2655. D. Wright, Racism in School Textbooks 271Unit 1 Russian FormalismIn the heyday of high modernism emerged a group of college students and young faculty in Moscow and Petersburg, Russia, whose interest was claimed to be literature per se. They were few in number, but their unmistakable insistence on the ideal status of literary study and stubborn pursuit for its realization has marked the beginning of a new era, and produced profound influence on the subsequent development of contemporary Western critical theory.It is generally believed that Formalism started in 1914 when Viktor Shklovsky publis hed “The Resurrection of the Word,” and ended with his essay “A Monument to Scientific Error” in 1930. Organizationally the formalists centered around two different though interrelated groups. One was “The Society for the Study of Poetic Language” (Opojaz), founded in 1916 by Shklovsky, Boris Eikhenbaum, Yury Tynyanov and others, whose interest was the general principles governing literature and distinguishing it from other forms of verbal expression. The other group was the Moscow Linguistic Circle, founded in 1915 by linguists like Roman Jakobson, which based literary study on linguistics by insisting on the differentiation between poetic and practical language.In spite of the apparent differences in their theoretical assumptions and critical practice, the two groups share one thing in common, namely, to “place the study of literature on a scientific footing by defining its object and establishing its own methods and procedures.” In other words, they were united in an effort to find the internal laws and principles that make a piece of literature literary, or the FORM of literature (hence the label of “formalism”, though Eikhenbaum for political reasons would rather prefer the word “specificity”) (Bennett 1979: 10).“Form” is a negative word, met hodologically, if not ideologically. That is, the formalists argued at the beginning for a strict separation of form and content and made repeated efforts to discredit the latter as a proper object of literary study by concentrating exclusively on the former. This radical separation posed difficult problems, theoretical as well as ideological, for the later formalists, and forced them to make compromises. The former “extra-aesthetic” materials (historical, biographical, sociological, or psychological) were treated as quasi-formal and put back again into the category of “form” in terms of foreground/ background. Here content was called upon only as a means of foregrounding form, and therefore had lost the value of its own ontological existence.For Shkl ovsky, there must be a quality which made form “formal” or literature “literary.” Here he and other formalists faced a difficult task of defining the peculiarity of literature. This peculiarity had been talked about ever since Aristotle in vague terms like “poetry” or “work of art,” simply because it seemed to defy any concrete explication. But for the formalist a concrete and unmistakable concept had to be found, so that the object of discussion (literature) might be put in a more clearly definedtheoretical framework. Shklovsky made a wise breakthrough by turning to language, as literature is basically a verbal art. He argued that literature differs from non literature for a quality called “literariness,” (though other formalists such as the Muscovites wou ld express it in different terms) manifested in its peculiar use of language, as “the language of poetry is ... a difficult, roughened, impeded language.” It is to be noted that this does not mean “poetic” language is necessarily a difficult language. The emphasis here, Shklovsky argued, is on the process of experience rather than on its final product, “the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.”A.S. Pushkin and Maxim Gorky reversed the traditional literary/ ordinary language and therefore “roughened” their language by intentionally making it easier (Lemon & Reis 1965: 22, 12). Similar cases are numerous in different literatures. The Chinese poets in Tang Dynasty such as Li Po pushed for a plain and terse poetic language as a reaction to the dominant ornate poetic style. Similarly, William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge in the English Romanticism used “common language of the common people” for the “spontaneous overflow” of feelings as against the mannerism of the proceeding century.What follows then is the means by which this “literariness” is to be achieved. The formalists started with verbal art, but for a general theory of “specificity” applicable to all forms of art (painting, dancing, photography, architecture, etc.), they had to come to terms with a more universal principle for the “artfulness” of art. Hence the concept of “defamiliarization” (It is said that Shklovsky originally used “OCTPAHHEИE,” or “estrangement” in Russian. But the typesetter mistakenly turned the word into “OCTPAHEИE,” meaning “sharpening,” a beautiful mistake as it now comes to mean “to defamiliarize so as to sharpen”).Shklovsky may not be the first to raise the idea of defamiliarization, P.B. Shelley for instance says in “A Defence of Poetry” that poetry “makes familiar objects be as if they were not familiar.” But it is the Formalists who first made it, by a systemati c account, a poetic principle.If the Opojaz critics looked for “literariness” in the process of reading experience with individual texts, the Moscow linguists turned to more concrete rhetorical devices in structure, rhyme and rhythm for “poeticity.” Roman Jakobson, for instance, in “The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles” believes that linguistic signs may be clustered around the poles of metaphor and metonymy. Realism in its emphasis on reflection is more metonymic while the avant guard literature is more metaphorical, or poetical.There is one important difference, however, between the Opojaz critics and their linguistic counterparts. While Shklovsky took “laying bare devices” at the expense of all the other literary constituents, Jakobson and Muk arovsky tried to be more inclusive in their idea of “foreground/ background”: a work of art is constituted not by the sheer number of devices, but by devices arranged in a hierarchy. In order to “foreground” a temporarily stable “dominant device,” all the other components of the work have to be present and work together. While Shklovsky finds it hard to account for change in literary form since this form is mechanical and static, and an increased number of devices would eventually lead to the disappearance of any noticeable device, the dynamic network of literary work proposed by the Russian linguists generates a theory of literary historiography: any change in literature is explained by the rearrangement of literary device, with the obsolete device retreating into the background to be foregrounded again, in a different form perhaps, in the future.Later Opojaz critics tried to redress the error they had made. Shklovsky, for instance, talks about literary history in terms of the relation of literary forms: the hegemonic form takes on the traces of the previously dominant form, which may expect to win back the dominance again. Here Shklovsky to a certain extent solves the problem of defamiliarization eventually turned into automatization. Tynyanov also t alks about the change in literary form in terms of “breaks”: literary forms replace one another more by struggle and breakthroughs than by direct inheritance. The idea is interesting because it in a way anticipates Thomas S. Kuhn‟s idea of paradigm shifts and Michel Foucault‟s idea of history. The idea of breakthrough may also account for the particular period when Russian Formalism flourished, a period in which Russian literature tried to break away from the European literary tradition, and Russian criticism to deviate from symbolism, realism, and naturalism.The most severe criticism of Formalism came from Marxism. Trotsky‟s remark that “the form of art is, to a certain and very large degree, independent, but the artist who creates this form, and the spectator who is enjoying it, are not empty machines” is a valid and forceful criticism. Bakhtin was also keen to point out that “if, when we isolate the ideological object, we lose sight of the social connections which penetrate it (of which it is the most subtle manifestation), if we detach it from the system of social interaction, then nothing of the ideological object will remain” (Bakhtin & Medvedev 1985: 77). The formalist idolization of an autonomous text was later described by Fredric Jameson as f alling into the “prison house of language.” In the same light, the British Marxist Terry Eagleton deconstructs the idea of an ordinary language shared by the whole community, since “[any] actual language consists of a highly complex range of discourses, differentiated according to class, region, gender, status and so on” (Eagleton 1985: 5). Even formalists themselves realized that isolation of literariness might create more problems than they claimed to have solved. Tynyanov, for instance, observed in 1924 that it was almost impossible to make an absolute definition of literature; Eikhenbaum also admitted in 1929 that the relation between and the function of the constituents of literature were changing all the time (Todorov 1988: 86).Erroneous as it was and notorious as it has now become, the heritage of Formalism is too large to be overlooked. The post-structuralist Stanley Fish redefines formalism in terms of “beliefs,” and the sixteen formalistic beliefs he has listed cover almost every aspect of our life (Fish 1989: 6). Fokkema also observes that almost every literary theory in Europe is inspired by Formalism in one way or another (Fokkema & Kunne-Ibsch 1977:11). After the most dismantling attack on formalism in the seventieth and eightieth, more and more critics realize today that “we find in the activity of the Opojaz group the challenge in their trying to make out of literary studies a homogeneous domain... As we observe, they succeeded to a very large extent. For this reason alone, it is important to accept the most enriching part of their heritage and to continue it, rather than to grasp its weak points and to criticize them. The latter is always the easiest task” (Matejka & Pomorska, 1978: 279)There are many ways to account for the rise of Russian formalism. The turbulent years under Tsarism had turned some literary scholars away from any political commitment, for instance; the European influences such as aestheticism, intuitionism and Saussurean linguistics had found ready followers in Russia to the ivory tower of language; and the early twentieth century scientism had a special appeal to the Formalists. Yet one is not to forget the Russian critical heritage which had “foregrounded” Formalism. “Formalism was, it is true, the first critical m ovement in Russia which attacked in systematic fashion the problems of rhythm and meter, of style and composition. But the interest in literary craft was not in itself a novel phenomenon in Russian critical thought...a rich indigenous tradition of form-con sciousness [goes] back as far as the Middle Ages” (Erlich 1965: 20). Russian Formalism formally ended in early 1930s, but Jakobson and his colleagues went on with their research, first in Prague and then in the US. In spite of the apparent similarities between Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism, there is little evidence of mutual influence. However, RenéWellek, a major New Critic, collaborated with Jakobson in the Prague group in the 1930s. Formalism did not attract any critical attention from the Western academia until Erlich‟s publication of Russian Formalism, History - Doctrine in 1955 and Todorov‟s publication in 1965 of an anthology of Russian formalists, Theory of Literature, which enhanced the awareness of language and linguistic model for the French structuralists. Formalism had strong impact on the structuralism in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, especially the Tartu-Moscow group. Similar impact was also found in Czechoslovakia and Poland.Art as Technique(Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky, 1893-1984)Shklovsky is the leading Russian formalist theoretician and novelist. Graduate from St.Petersburg U and teacher at the Institute of Art History, he organized Opojaz andbecame its charter member, having “touched most of the fundamentals of Formalisttheory” and being “often the first to define a problem, and frequently [pointing] to itssolution.” Within a decade he proposed some of the most enduring concepts ofFormalism, such as defamiliarization (ostranenie), literariness, story/ plot (fabula/siuzhet), material/ device and laying bare of device. He is best remembered for hisanalysis of plot composition in terms of repetition, tautology, parallelism, double-plotting, opposition and false ending. From 1930s, he made more conventionalsociological studies on Tolstoy, and re-emerged in the 1960s with the reprints of hisearlier works and memoirs of Opojaz. “Art as Technique” (1917), a primary documentof the early Formalists, is often regarded as its manifesto. It “announces a break withth e only other …aesthetic‟ approach available at that time and in that place,” and “offersa theory of both the methodology of criticism and the purpose of art” by highlightingsome concepts central to the theoretical stance of the school in general, such asdefamiliarization and the distinction between poetic and ordinary language.“Art is thinking in images.” This maxim, which even high school students parrot, is nevertheless the starting point for the erudite philologist who is beginning to put together some kind of systematic literary theory. The idea, originated in part by Potebnya, has spread. “Without imagery there is no art, and in particular no poetry,” Potebnya writes. And elsewhere, “poetry, as well as prose, is first and foremost a special way of thinking and knowing.”Poetry is a special way of thinking; it is precisely, a way of thinking in images, a way which permits what is generally called “economy of mental effort,” a way which makes for “a sensation of the relative ease of the process.” Aesthetic feeling is the reaction to this economy. This is how the academician Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, who undoubtedly read the works of Potebnya attentively, almost certainly understood and faithfully summarized the ideas of his teacher. Potebnya and his numerous disciples consider poetry a special kind of thinking--- thinking by means of images; they feel that the purpose of imagery is to help channel various objects and activities into groups and to clarify the unknown by means of the known.Nevertheless, the definition “Art is thinking in images,” which means (I omit the usual middle terms of the argument) that art is the making of symbols, has survived the downfall of the theory which supported it. It survives chiefly in the wake of Symbolism, especially among the theorists of the Symbolist movement.Many still believe, then, that thinking in images---thinking, in specific scenes of “roads and landscape” and “furrows and boundaries”1--- is the chief characteristic of 1An illusion to Vyacheslav Ivanov‟s Furrows and Boundaries (Moscow, 1916), a major statement of Symbolist theory.。