The Literary Theory: Re-fashioning Cultural Practices and Processes:
New Historicism
By Prof. Rukshana Shroff
“What is history?”
On the 30th of October, Jabberwock brought in the final installment of this academic session’s Literary Theory series with a lecture on “Re-fashioning Cultural Practices and Processes: New Historicism” delivered most excellently and comprehensively by Prof. Rukshana Shroff.
While delving into the complexity of the concept and bringing in instances from history as well as her personal anecdotes, Dr. Shroff pushed the audience to think: Is there one history? Is history a narration of the actual past or is it a reconstruction of the past with the view of the present?
Dr. Shroff began with explaining the emergence of New Historicism in the 1980s as a body of ideas opposed to the beliefs of old historicists like Tillyard and the Formalists. In Tillyard’s view, history was a singular narrative and the critic was objective and apolitical. Even so, his reading of Shakespearean works was a celebration of the Tudors as divinely sanctioned rulers. Originating in the USA, Formalists considered texts to be autonomous aesthetic pieces independent of authorial beliefs. As opposed to these approaches, the basic premise of new historicism is that both the texts and the critic are in continuous negotiation with the network of beliefs and practices that constitute their culture. It is self-conscious about its interpretative role and holds that texts as socially produced and socially productive.
Referred to as “Cultural Poetics,” this approach developed through the works of Greenblatt (influenced by Raymond Williams), Clifford Geertz and the ideas of Foucault. New Historicists consider what Louis Montrose put as “the textuality of history and the historicity of texts.” They put forward the idea that any and all identities are constructed and controlled by social processes and the holders of power. It is power that determines which voices are represented and which are repressed, what constitutes the norm and what is abnormal and thus also, what is history. Even re-fashioning takes place within and according to a context.
These notions of power and identity have invited criticisms regarding their pessimistic quality for they are viewed to imply that power cannot be subverted and all behaviour is socially determined. However, new historians counter that their approach is simply indicative of the limits of textual and human intervention in their cultures and not the inevitability of failure of such intervention.
While concluding, Dr. Shroff invited questions from the audience. It was widely agreed that to mark the finale of this Jabberwock series, there could not have been a more excellently delivered lecture.
On the 30th of October, Jabberwock brought in the final installment of this academic session’s Literary Theory series with a lecture on “Re-fashioning Cultural Practices and Processes: New Historicism” delivered most excellently and comprehensively by Prof. Rukshana Shroff.
While delving into the complexity of the concept and bringing in instances from history as well as her personal anecdotes, Dr. Shroff pushed the audience to think: Is there one history? Is history a narration of the actual past or is it a reconstruction of the past with the view of the present?
Dr. Shroff began with explaining the emergence of New Historicism in the 1980s as a body of ideas opposed to the beliefs of old historicists like Tillyard and the Formalists. In Tillyard’s view, history was a singular narrative and the critic was objective and apolitical. Even so, his reading of Shakespearean works was a celebration of the Tudors as divinely sanctioned rulers. Originating in the USA, Formalists considered texts to be autonomous aesthetic pieces independent of authorial beliefs. As opposed to these approaches, the basic premise of new historicism is that both the texts and the critic are in continuous negotiation with the network of beliefs and practices that constitute their culture. It is self-conscious about its interpretative role and holds that texts as socially produced and socially productive.
Referred to as “Cultural Poetics,” this approach developed through the works of Greenblatt (influenced by Raymond Williams), Clifford Geertz and the ideas of Foucault. New Historicists consider what Louis Montrose put as “the textuality of history and the historicity of texts.” They put forward the idea that any and all identities are constructed and controlled by social processes and the holders of power. It is power that determines which voices are represented and which are repressed, what constitutes the norm and what is abnormal and thus also, what is history. Even re-fashioning takes place within and according to a context.
These notions of power and identity have invited criticisms regarding their pessimistic quality for they are viewed to imply that power cannot be subverted and all behaviour is socially determined. However, new historians counter that their approach is simply indicative of the limits of textual and human intervention in their cultures and not the inevitability of failure of such intervention.
While concluding, Dr. Shroff invited questions from the audience. It was widely agreed that to mark the finale of this Jabberwock series, there could not have been a more excellently delivered lecture.
Written by Nooria Fatima