In any case, I find myself more interested in Postcolonial theory. Between reading Bourdieu and my chosen book for review, Folk Women and Indirection, I have become fascinated with the idea of giving the powerless a voice. Whether that voice is opposed, beleaguered or cloaked in "sly civility" (Fulmer 28), it is important to recognize that the voice of the dominated or the "Other" is still a legitimate voice (especially since we have all been reared with a Western Mentality). For instance, Bhabha, like Yoda, asks us to "unlearn what we think we have learned" about "colonial discourse" (294). It is our job as teachers, critics and, indeed, truth seekers to transcend this Western idea that the dominated or the "Other" must be either idealized, sensualized or demonized. Both of these lenses encourage misrepresentation and, while the former is seen as positive, stereotyping: "the site of dreams, images, fantasies, myths, obsessions and requirements" (Bhabha 295).
The only true way to experience literature, without these prejudices, is to go back to texts with fresh eyes, and with a new way of discovering literature through it's non-fiction sister texts in order to fairly critique certain pieces, keeping in mind the possibility (probability?) that a lot of the available historical texts are biased.
Interesting you mention your chosen book for review in your comments. My chosen book for review Writing the past, Writing the Future: Time and Narrative in Gothic and Sensation Fiction, I believe is written from a New Historicism perspective. In the introduction, the author quotes Goethe "There remains no doubt these days that world history from time to time has to be rewritten...because new views emerge" (25). Just thought it was an interesting quote in light of your comments on history and text. For me, New Historicism is a criticism that simply makes sense.
ReplyDeleteLinda Daly
ReplyDeleteI am interested in New Historian's approach as another way to interpret and make meaning of literature. I also am attracted to post colonial theory as a legitimate way to approach literature. Each theory seems somewhat more useful with certain kinds of literature, rather than with all literature, as time and place may play a large role in some literature and not another. Culture and social values may seem more present in one work than another as well. Where I get a little lost is when a writer like Morrison is described as post colonial, neo slave narrative, post structural, modern, feminist, etc. Why do we have all these different schools when there is so much overlap?