New historicism

In literary theory, New Historicism is an analytical approach built on the idea that a text can be understood in two primary contexts: that in which it was written and that in which it was read. New Historicism thus engages both author and reader, viewing the author, the reader, and their respective historical backgrounds as essential interpretive elements.

New Historicists believe that specific periods in history can be understood better through the literature produced during those periods, and that literature can be understood better as a product of the specific period during which it was written. Readers, as products of their own distinct cultural environment, invariably import the attitudes, assumptions, and presuppositions of their time to the act of reading. According to New Historicists, these must also be considered as part of any complete analysis of a literary work.

Background

The development of New Historicism is largely credited to literary historian and author Stephen Greenblatt, who drew inspiration from the work of French social theorist and philosopher Michel Foucault. Foucault is widely considered one of the leading intellectuals of the twentieth century, and he is often cited as one of the founders of postmodern thought. His body of work shows a recurrent preoccupation with power structures, the inherent character of subjective experience, and epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy that seeks to understand the nature of knowledge.

Greenblatt spearheaded the development of new historical approaches to literary criticism during the 1980s, while he was an English professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He coined the term New Historicism in his introduction to a collection of essays titled Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture, which he originally published in 1990. In Learning to Curse, Greenblatt focused on art produced during the European Renaissance, a cultural and historical period usually said to span from the thirteenth to the seventeenth century. Through a series of essays, he argued that Renaissance artwork could not be understood properly outside of its historical context. In so doing, he imported concepts from a wide range of academic disciplines and philosophical systems, including anthropology, history, Marxism, psychoanalysis, and post-structuralism, a philosophical and literary movement that originated in France during the 1960s. Post-structuralists hold that truth does not inherently exist, but rather it is created by consensus and is entirely dependent on the relationships among things.

This interdisciplinary approach to artistic and literary interpretation had not previously been systematized, and Greenblatt's profile grew enormously once New Historicism was embraced by the academic world. He became a much sought-after lecturer, and he was eventually lured from his position at Berkeley to a high-ranking professorial post at Harvard University.

Overview

New Historicism is largely based on the idea that it is not possible to achieve an objective view of history, and that people cannot help but interpret history through the lens of their own experiences. For New Historicists, that experience largely arises from the cultural, economic, historical, and social milieu in which an individual lives. An individual's unique life experiences are also held to shape the viewpoint from which they interpret things. Specific to literary criticism and interpretation, this premise leads New Historicists to conclude that a reader's general and personal subjective experiences will always determine how they respond to a particular work.

Authors are similarly viewed as products of the cultural, economic, historical, and social environment in which they lived. For New Historicists, the act of writing cannot be divorced from the general and personal circumstances under which it was carried out. In composing works of literature, authors knowingly or unknowingly reflect the values, struggles, conflicts, and nature of the broader society of which they are (or were) a part.

Given that Greenblatt is a noted authority on the works of William Shakespeare, Shakespearean plays are often used as illustrative examples of the New Historicist system of interpretation. One long-debated question in academic circles is whether Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice reveals its author's antisemitic leanings. In the play, the Jewish character of Shylock is treated in terms that many modern readers find offensive and discriminatory. At varying points in the play, Shylock is likened to an animal and a devil. He is spat upon and abandoned by his daughter, and she goes on to convert to Christianity. By the end of the play, Shylock's greed leads to his undoing. Many modern readers see this event as perpetuating negative stereotypes of Jewish people.

New Historicists believe there is no simple answer to the question of whether Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock shows that he was antisemitic. They point out that in Shakespeare's time, antisemitic sentiments were common in England and even widely accepted. If the concept of antisemitism as it is understood in modern times did not exist during Shakespeare's lifetime, can the play truly be considered antisemitic? New Historicists also consider the possibility that Shakespeare wrote Shylock as he did to analyze prevailing attitudes toward Jews. This leads to questions that can be answered only if one engages with Shakespeare's subjective viewpoint rather than considering the work separately from its author. Moreover, the fact that modern readers even grapple with questions of antisemitism with regard to The Merchant of Venice demonstrates a level of cultural sensitivity unique to contemporary society. A person reading the play a century or two centuries ago would likely not have paid attention to its antisemitic themes.

New Historicism also engages with other questions regarding authors, readers, their subjective experiences, and their respective historical and cultural backgrounds. It often seeks to place literary works within the context of other works produced during the same historical period and strives to understand how the values of that historical age are reflected in these texts. New Historicism embraces conflicting interpretations of a work, finding value in the notion that an author or a work can seem to offer positive and negative views of events, figures, and ideas simultaneously. On a deeper level, New Historicism also aims to generate an understanding of predominant and alternative cultural discourses that define the author's and reader's times.

Bibliography

Anti-Semitism and The Merchant of Venice: A Discussion Guide for Educators. Anti-Defamation League, 2006, www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Merchant‗Venice‗Discussion‗Guide.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr. 2017.

Appleman, Deborah. Critical Encounters in Secondary English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents. 4th ed., Teachers College Press, 2024.

Bennett, Andrew, and Nicholas Royle. An Introduction to Literature, Criticism, and Theory. 6th ed., Routledge, 2023.

Felluga, Dino Franco. "General Introduction to New Historicism." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory, 31 Jan. 2011, www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/newhistoricism/modules/introduction.html. Accessed 6 Apr. 2017.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Learning to Curse: Early Essays in Modern Culture. Routledge, 1990.

Mann, John. "A Gentle Introduction to Structuralism, Postmodernism, and All That." Philosophy Now, 1994, philosophynow.org/issues/10/A‗Gentle‗Introduction‗to‗Structuralism‗Postmodernism‗And‗All‗That. Accessed 6 Apr. 2017.