NEW HISTORICISM
The term ‘New Historicism’ was coined
by the American critic Stephen Greenblatt (b:1943) in his book ‘Renaissance
Self fashioning: from more to Shakespeare’ (1980). New historicism is a method of literary
criticism that emphasizes the history of the text by relating it to the configurations
of power, society or ideology in a given time. Though there were many critics in the 1970s
with the same tendencies, this book challenged conservative critical views
about Jacobean theatre and linked the plays much more closely with the
political events of their era than previous critics done. Actually, historicism is a theory in which history
is seen as a standard of value or a determinant of events. But, New Historicism is a method based on the
parallel reading of literary and non literary texts, usually of the same
historical period. It practices a study
in which literary and non-literary texts are given equal weight and constantly
inform and interrogate each other. It
involves an intensified willingness to read all the textual traces of the
past. It has a combined interest on both
the ‘Textuality of History’ and the ‘Historicity of the Texts’.
The practice of giving ‘equal
weighting’ to literary and non-literary material is the first and major
difference between the ‘new’ and ‘old’ historicism. A new historical essay will place the
literary text with in the form of non-literary text. Greenblatt’s main innovation was to juxtapose
the plays of the Renaissance period with the horrifying colonialist policies pursued
by all the major European powers of the Era.
Through ‘The Modernist Shakespeare’ of Hugh Grady, he draws allegation to
‘the marginalization and dehumanizing of suppressed others’, by starting an
essay with the analysis of a contemporary historical document which overlaps in
some way with the subject matter of the plays.
Thus, new historicism accepts Derrida’s deconstructive reading. Whatever is represented in a text is thereby
remade. Thus its aim is not to present
the past as it really was, but to present a new reality by re-situating it.
As an example of ‘old’ historicism,
we may consider E.M.W Tillyard’s, ‘The Elizabethan World Picture’(1943) and
Shakespeare’s History plays (1944), where conservative mental attitude of Elizabethan
and their outlooks reflected in Shakespeare’s plays are taken into considerations. Here the traditional approach to Shakespeare
is characterized by the combination of the historical framework with, the
practice of ‘close reading’. But, the New
Historicism is resolutely anti-establishment, always on the side of liberal
ideals of personal freedom and accepting and celebrating all forms of difference
and ‘deviance’. It is powerful enough to penetrate the most
intimate areas of personal life. New historicism
deals with power struggles with a social system, how it affects people and also
how they rebel against it. ‘The Tempest’
is the play full of such struggles between Caliban and Prospero. Prospero accuses Caliban of being ungrateful
for all that he has taught and given. So, he calls him a lying slave, where as
Caliban sees Prospero and Miranda as imperialists who took control of his
island. Thus, according to the New Historicists
‘The Tempest’ is about colonization and freedom apart from forgiveness. In this way, the New Historicism opens up new dimension for the reader. The
goal of new historicists is to comprehend literature through its historical and
cultural context while analysing the cultural and intellectual history
portrayed by the literature.
Though
the New Historicism is founded upon post-structuralist thinking, it avoids the
latter’s dense style and vocabulary.
Instead it presents its data and draws its conclusions. The data is also allowed to be interpreted. The material itself is often distinctive and fascinating. It is totally different from those produced
by any other critical approach and immediately gives the reader the feeling
that the new territory is being entered.
The political edge of the new historicist is sharp and at the same time
it avoids the problems faced by the Marxist criticism and helps them to have a
critical enquiry of their own and thereby enrich the process of defining,
classifying and evaluating the works of literature. In this way the past is no doubt revived for
the utility of the present. Moreover,
cultural materialism is actually one of the major anthropological perspectives for
analysing human societies. But, the key
difference between New Historicism and cultural materialism is that New
Historicism focuses on the oppression in the society that has to be overcome in
order to achieve change, where as cultural materialism focuses on how that
change is brought about. Though the
methods of New Historicism are not greatly valued or admired by historians, its
approach is a way of ‘doing’ history which has a strong appeal for non-historians.
------Thulasidharan V
No comments:
Post a Comment