New Historicism is a critical methodology that moves away from the intense formalism of the New Critics and the naive historicism of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Rather, new historicists conceive of literature as situated within the totality of the institutions, social practices, and the discourses that constitute the culture of a particular time and place, and with which the literary texts interacts as both a product and a producer of cultural energies and codes. Four theoretical assertions support new historicist practices:
- A literary text is not any more autonomous than other forms of writing. It is not, as the New Critics argued, autonomous but historically dependent.
- Literature is therefore "embedded" in its contexts, both shaped by its context and helping to shape the larger culture.
- The author is subject to his or her historical moment, although he or she too may intervene in this history.
- The reader is subject to his or her historical moment, although, again, he or she too may intervene in this history.
New Historicists are primarily interested in two aspects of study:
- The way in which a text represents a given historical problem or institution. This representation might either be more literal or figurative. For instance, Brook Thomas's American Realism and the Failed Promise of Contract examines how the shifting status of contract, both in the realms of industrial labor and marriage, was represented in American realist novels. In contrast, Michael Szalay's New Deal Modernism reads modernist literature of the 1930s and 1940s in light of the development of the New Deal. While the texts that Szalay studies do not deal with the New Deal directly, he examines them for evidence of reproducing the cultural logic of the New Deal.
- The way in which the means of production influence the production of a work of literature. For instance, Lawrence Rainey's Institutions of Modernism gives up the close examination of texts altogether in order to understand how the market for aesthetic goods influenced the production of The Waste Land, Ulysses, and other modernist milestones.
All works of cultural production are shaped by the historical circumstances in which they are produced and received. If we fail to understand a text's context, we fail to understand the text in its entirety. Thus, when we read a work of literature, we must take into account the historical forces that guided its production and its reception. In order to do so we must take three things into account.
First, we ought to understand the historical realities that the work depicts. While many novels and plays tell stories set in their author's present, many do not. We ought then to consider why the author chose this time for his or her setting? Could it be set in another era without much substantive change? What historical forces within the work influence its characters, its themes? In considering the time depicted we should not scrutinize it for accuracy. We are not reading histories. All writers take poetic license with the facts and no historical novel/play is under a strict contract to tell their reader the historical Truth with a capital "T." The most any writer can do is tell his or her reader the history as he or she understands it. If the writer has taken major liberties with the historical record, its far more interesting to ask what the effects of these changes are in terms of plot, character development, or theme. Quibbling over inaccuracies does not lead to a better understanding of the the work.
Second, it's important to take into account the time of the novel's production. When did the author write the novel? Over how much time? Historical works are often more about the time in which they appear than with the time they depict. Thus, William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is far more interested in his contemporary moment than with the trials and tribulations of Rome. With this in mind it's then important to ask how Shakespeare's views of the English monarchy influenced his depiction of Rome.
Third, we need to consider when the work was received. That is to say, we need to know when readers/audiences first got their hands on the text. While many works are published soon after their completion, other works are published long after their author has completed them or after some delay. However, considering when a work is received need not only limit our discussion to its initial audience. After all, we all are readers and we are well aware that we continue to read the works of the past. Therefore, we can also ask how later generations of readers understood a text and why.
This entry adapts material from M. H. Abrams from A Glossary of Literary Terms.
This entry adapts material from M. H. Abrams from A Glossary of Literary Terms.
