7/29/2019 Fluck American Literary

1/5

AmerIcan Llterary LrltlClsm In ;:,earcn 01Literary TheoryBy Winf ri ed F luck (Ber li n )B loomfi e ld , Mort on W. (ed.):In Search of Literary Theory.Ithaca, London: Cornell U. Press , 1972Morris , Wesley:Toward a New Historicism.Princeton, N. J. : Princeton U. Press , 1972Goodheart, Eugene:Culture and t he Rad ic a l Conscience.Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard U. Press , 1973

At certain t imes t h er e seems to exist a special n ee d f or a renewed theoreticalorientation. Obviously, American l i terary crit icism ha s arrived at su ch astage right now. After a l ong pe ri od of unquestioned reign of new-cri t ica lcontextualism and a f t er nea rly as long a period of questioning and revising it ,a cl imate of unce r ta inty i s now prevalent which no contr ibution to th e curren ttheoretical d i al ogue c an a ff o rd to ignore. Opposing perceptions of wha t t hecore of th e problem is have led cri t ics into var ious d i r ec t ions to s ol ve i t- toward "dialect ical" crit icism and a renewed in terest in Marxist l i teraryt h eo ry; toward "scientific" cri t ic i sm and quantitative methods; towardst ructura l i sm or hermeneutics ; toward a culture-and-society approach or a"new" historic i sm. The essay collection edited by M. Bloomfield and th e studiesby Morris and Goodheart be long to this variety of contending approaches in"search of l i terary t h eo r y" . Th e ir a n al y si s can serve to exemplify a few o f t hecharacteri s t ic responses to th e challenge.

r. .'I n Search of Literary Theo ry ' i s no t a book which aims at a comprehens ivesurvey of th e state of l i terary theory - in contras t , fo r example, to th e recentes s ay collection rContemporary Cri t ic i sm r edited by Malcolm Bradbury andDavid Palmer . It compr i se s s ix papers writ ten by renowned l i terary theoristssuch as Northrop Frye, E. D. Hirsch, J r . , Geoffrey Hartman, Paul De Man ,Meye r Ab rams and the editor, in conjunction wit h two conferences on l i t e rarytheory held i n 1968 and 1969. Wit h t he excep ti on o f th e cont r ibut ion by Abrams,a ll t he essays have been previously published in th e spr ing 1970 issue of'Daedalus '. The special in terest of t he vo lume , then, lies i n t he solutionsoffered to th e curren t dilemma by well-es tabl ished l i terary theorists, sinceit i s t he ir common purpose to f ind" a f i rm theo re ti c a l b a se fo r dealing withl i terature." (p. vii) "Al l t he essays" , th e editor claims in hi s preface, "dealrespons ibly with issues bas ic to l i terary study." (p.vii) What, however, ar eth e essent ia l elements of a "firm theoret ica l b as e f or dealing with l i t e ra ture"?In hi s essay 'Value and Knowledge in th e Humanities ' E. D. Hirsch, J r . ,

most emphatically insists on th e " s c ien t i fi c " s ide of l i terary cr i t icism. Hes tar ts ou t from th e recent " pl e as f o r re-examination and self-justification" inth e humanit ies . In th e var ious responses, he f in ds "complacency on th e oneside or mindless moral i sm on th e other . " (p .58) To b e sure , he is no t sa t i sf ie d w it h th e conservative defense of th e humanities in terms of "academicfreedom" and "knowledge f or i ts own sake" because it fails to acknowledge

313 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3(1974) American and English Studies

','

7/29/2019 Fluck American Literary

2/5

t h e ines capab le cen tr a l ity of value and relevance. O n th e other hand, th eradica l answer s t r ikes h im a s "i rresponsib le in a different way." (p.59):" The r a di c al a c ti v is t i s naive to suppose t ha t i nq ui ry a s such ca n be bound

to an ideology. Only th e c ho i c e of a question is in t he p r ovince of mo ra l o rideological commitment . Onc e t he c hoi ce is m ad e, th e results of inquiry ar edetermined by evidence an d b y log ic ." (p.59)For Hirsch, th e basic p r ob lem o f l i terary t h eory r esu lt ing f rom this analysis

is th e n ee d t o correct "scientific skepticism" . Th e centrality of relevance andv al ue i s correct ly perceived by cri t i cs o f t he conservat ive position, y et i t isgiven pr ior i ty to an extent which questions th e possibility of "scientificinquiry" in general . "Many humanis ts .. . have lost faith in th e s c ien t if i c s ideof their enterpr ise." (p.60) Hirsch 's e ss ay i s an at tempt to res tore this faith.Hi s basic s trategy is to negate " the a t temp t to formulate a sat is factorytheoretical distinction be tween the cogn i ti ve element in th e humanities and int h e n a tu r al sciences ." (p.62) If t hi s d ic ho tomy c annot be maintained, al lserious inquiry must be governed by precisely th e same scientific laws,namely "the crit ical testing of hypotheses with reference to evidence andlogic. " (p.64) Thus , " t he l ogi c of t h i s s c ien t if i c process is the same f or a llsubject matters .. " (p.68) Once t hi s is accepted by l i terary crit ics, "thediscipline will r e ga i n i t s health." (p.67)Th e solution of th e curren t perplexity s e ems s imp le - a little to o s imple we

have reason to believe i n v ie w of a vast b od y o f l i terature pointing ou t var iousdiff iculties in t he appl i ca ti on o f pos i t iv is t l aw s o f e vi d en ce and logic to th ehumanit ies . Unfortunately, it is at t hi s mo st i n te r es t in g point that Hirsch 'sa rgumen t b r eaks off. Th e theoret ical and practical consequences of hi sa p pr oa ch a r e no t worked out. I doubt whether hi s impulse toward morerationality, validity, and l og ic i n th e humanities would be ser ious ly disputedp e r s e . I f possible, who wouldn 't want it? The argument against it by th evar ious an t i- posi t iv i s t positions is no t necessari ly that it would no t be des irable ,bu t rather that a) it is no t possible fo r l i terary s tudies to be "scientific" inth e sense of logical positivism and b) that e ve n i f it wou ld b e possible it wouldnot b e s u ff ic ie n t a s cr i ter ion of th e "validity" and relevance of the resul t s .Is th e centrality of relevance and value really only a matter of th e c h o i c e

of question? Interpretation and method in l i t e ra ry s tudies , it s eems to me,cannot be s epa ra ted f rom an unde rl y i ng va lue inte res t . If , f o r exampl e, acritic decides to in terpre t a text in terms of "s tructure" (because ou t of acertain dominating l i t e ra ry theory this might appear to him as the self-evident"scient if ic" g oa l o f l i t e ra ry cri t ic i sm) this interes t in st ructure will inevi tablyand deci s ive ly de termine a l l f u r the r steps o f h is procedure. It will di rec t hi sattention to ce r t ain f ea tu r es o f t he w ork ; it will t h e reby recommend ce r t a inelements as invested with value, wher e as o t he r f e at u re s will be ignored. Thisinterdependence cannot be eliminated by mere ly r ep lac ing scientif ic skepticismwith scientif ic optimism. What i s e spec ia lly uns at i sf ac to ry about Hirsch 'sa r gument i s, in other wor ds , t he abst rac t and superficial l ev e l a t which itremains. As i t i s, th e paper con t ribu te s l i t tl e more to t he so lu t ion o f t hecurrent "perplexity" than an abst rac t reassessment of th e pos i t ivis t credo.In th e des ire to solve th e dilemma by b e com ing a s accurate and predictable

as th e n a tu r al s c ie n ti s t, H ir sc h s ta n ds fo r a significant trend in the currentsearch of l i t e ra ry theory. It is a t r end re f lec t ing th e tremendously highs c ien t if i c s t atu s which ana lyt ic phi losophy d e ri v in g f rom Be rt ra n d Ru ss e ll andth e older Wittgenste in has gained in th e United States and England. No t

surpr is ingly , some l i terary theorists have resorted to it in a v ag ue hop e o fob ta i ni ng usef u l sugges t ions f o r so lv i ng th e theoretical di lemma of l i t e ra rycri t i c i sm. It is this hope t hat i s c hal le nged by Abrams in hi s essay 'What 's theUse of Theorizing about the Art s? ' Clearly, it is th e best and most penetratingcontr ibution o f t he who le volume. It s starting point is th e claim of analyticaltheor is ts t ha t "val i d c r i ti c a l o r a e st he ti c t heo r y i s a logica l impossibi li ty . "(p.3) How else ca n we expl ai n , " t ha t no o ne h as ye t l oca t ed a common featureof objects denoted by th e genera l t e rm ' ar t ' that will satisfy more t ha n afraction o f p eop l e who profess to be experts on th e subject?" (p . 24) Yet,Ab rams i s no t cont ent with th e easy way in which analytic philosophy disposesof a l l aesthet i c t he o ry f or t h ree r easons : 1) It is no t th e sole function of theoryto def ine" art". 2) No t al l definitions necessar i ly res t o n t he mistakenassumption that there exists something l ike an "essence" of art. 3} Eve n i fthey ar e based on th is assumpt ion, there is still s om e u se fo r t hi s t yp e o flogically untenable general izat ion: just by it s actual f u nc ti on a s persuas iverhetoric under th e logical disguise of a n essent ial definition, it teaches peoplehow to look at new features of aes the t ic objec ts . Abrams ' argument i s m o stconvincing where he ingeniously points ou t that th e v e ry c r it ic s who re jec t th epossibility of general statements abou t what ar t is do no t themselves hes i ta teto make unqual i fied asser t ions about art . The a r gumen t against th e validity ofaes thet ic general izat ions is itself based on a specific aesthetic theory. By givin g a shor t and compressed outline of th e history of aes thet ic theor ies in th el as t cen tur i e s, Ab rams shows how c e rt a in t e rms have become so much a partof " th e cu rr e nt coin of aes the tic inte rchange" (p. 47) as to require no defenseor explicit justif ication by th e analytic theorists . This demonst r at i on mostimpres sive ly suppo r ts hi s basic c l aim: t hat l i t e rary cri t ic i sm - l ik e i t or no t inevitably presupposes l i terary theory. I t c an never be come " theory-f ree" assome analytic theor is ts claim it s houl d i n order to gain scientif ic s tatus .

I f there is on e thing t hi s e ss ay leaves to be desired it is the f a ct t hat it , too,confines itself to reassert ing a basic posit ion: there is some us e in generalizing about the arts after all. Ab rams a ls o a dv is es us no t to res tr ict ourselvesto th e position of analytic aesthetics, bu t he unfortunately does no t take up thequestion of an alternative approach. Obviously, it wa s no t part of h i s i n te n ti onsat that t ime . N eve r th e le s s, i t would be very in te r e st ing to se e hi s theoret icala cumen be ing appl ie d to t h is t a sk .In a way, on e might think t hat t h is is w ha t Frye and Har tman have attempted

to do in their essays , since it is their purpose to provide a new perspective fo rl i terary his tory . In hi s essay 'The Crit ical Path: An Essay on th e Social Context of Li t e rary Cr it i ci sm ' F r ye aims at a "theory of crit icism which would,firs t, account fo r the major phenomena of l i terary experience, and, second,would lead to some v ie w of the p la ce o f l i terature in c ivil izat ion as a whole. "(p. 93 f. ) F o r F r ye , th e most convincing path to the first goal h as b ee n l ai dou t by contextualism. Bu t, a lt hough "the g r ea t me r it of explicatory crit icismwa s that it accepted poe tic language as th e basis fo r poe tic meaning .. . at thes ame time, it deprived itself of the great strength of documentary crit icism:th e sense of context."( p. 99} Th e d il emma i s v er y f ar f rom being solved andFrye's p ape r i s an attempt to suggest a "new path". He is , however, no t at al lin teres ted in a sociology of literature as it i s commonl y understood, becausehe looks " fo r s ome context .. . within l i terature i tself." (p.100) Usually, heclaims l i t e ra ture i s mere ly " ass i ,n i l at ed" to some other k in d o f history. Inc o n t r a ~ t , he regards certain structural elements i n t he l i terary tradition, "such

314 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3(1974) American and Engl ish Studies 315 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3(1974) American and Engl ish Studies

7/29/2019 Fluck American Literary

3/5

as conven t ions , genres, and th e recurr ing us e of cer tain images or imageclusters , which I came to call archetypes" a s the creat ive and i n fo rming poweroperating o n t he poet specif ically as a craf tsman, and making possible "thecreat ion of new works of l i terature o ut o f earl ie r ones ." (p.l02) Literaryhistory proper ly understood would then be th e his tory of cer tain s t ruc tu r a le lements wi th in the l i terary tradition. Th e "new path" , af ter some 100 pagesor so , turns out to be th e old famil iar highway af ter all. There ar e jus t a fewnew s igns on the roadside. As a contribution to some thing l i ke a "new" or atl eas t a revised perspective on l i t e ra ry history, such a resul t is clear ly disappointing, s in ce i t cont inu es t o isolate th e l i t e ra ry tradition as a sel f-susta inin g entity. It s inadequacy is closely connected with two bas ic conv i ct ions o fquestionable validity which neverthe les s s eem to be indestructible and se l f-perpetuating. One is th e unwa rr ant ed a s sumpt ion that th e contextua l i s t approachalone is capable of doing justice to l i t e ra ture . Th e achievement of contextualism lies in p oi nt in g o ut t o u s t he values of "close reading" an d t he n ee d fo rlooking at th e s tructure of t he wor k itself. Ye t this achievement should no tlead us to th e famil iar confusion of a " l i t e rary" in terpretat ion with it s definition by contextualism. I ca n se e no reason why it s houl d no t be possible tointe rpre t a text closely, to take it s s t ruc tura l elements i n to account and sti l ls ee i t a s cu lt u ra l expression in connection with th e "ou te r" h i s tor i ca l andsocial situation to which it responded. Obviously we n ee d n ot make an ei ther /orchoice.T h e s ec ond unfortunate he r it a ge f r om th e contextualist heyday is th e sweep

i ng v iew that al l a tt emp ts a t a sociology of l i terature a r e n e c es s ar i ly " d et e rm ini s ti c " o r "documenta r y" ; t ha t they ar e principally and inherently incapableof being " l i terary" . Thi s a rgumen t h as b ee n s o g e ne ra ll y a cc ep te d by Amer icanl i t e ra ry criticism that Frye nowhe r e a t tempt s to take a closer look at currentreassessments from which h i s d i s cus s ion cou ld have prof ited considerably.Instead he constantly alludes to ear l ier prescr ipt ions of social rea l i sm as ifthey ar e to be considered as paradigmatic fo r al l at tempts t o d ef in e t he relationships between l i terature and it s social context. Th e case aga inst th e possibilityof a sociology of l i t e ra ture appears to be settled once and f or a ll . Frye's us eof t e rms is i l luminating in this respect . Anybody attempting to go beyond an" inner" history of l i te r a tu r e i s immedia te ly identified with th e view " that th el i t e ra ry form of a work of l i terature is a negligible and arbi t ra ry feature" and"that only t he cont ent of l i terature need be t ak en ser ious ly" (p.188), or , that"society does . . s imply pr oduce p l ays and poems and novels .. . " (p.187).It is t h i s c a tegor ic a l and simplifying manner in which th e possibility of asociology of l i terature is dealt w it h i n t e rms of it s wors t er ro r s that I findespecially vulnerable. On e suspects that th e reason f or t hi s l ac k of effort tounderstand th e adversary position is that Frye w as n ot really interes ted fromth e s tar t in seriously d i scus s i ng the possi b il i ty of a non-contextua l i s t l i t e ra ryhis tory. This would have obliged hi m t o a do pt an inqui r ing ra ther than a cont en ti o us po st ur e. I t would have mean t " to look and se e .. what is go ing on,rather than what one is cer tain in advance must be go ing on" - as M. Abramsaptly puts it in v iew o f th e e as y d i spo sa l o f l i terary theory by analyticphilosophy.Geoffrey Hartman, in an essay ent i tled 'Toward Literary History' , insists

on th e necessity of a newly-conceived l i terary h i st o ry " be c au se i t alone ca nprovide today a sorely needed defense of ar t . "(p. 199) Here, to o, t he maindifficulty is seen in th e n ee d to "ground art in history wi thout deny ing it s

autonomy, it s aristocratic res is tance to th e t oo th o f t ime" ( p. 199) . T he solution is f ound in th e writing of l i terary history f rom the p oin t of v iew o f t he poetsor of poetry. By confining l i t e r a ry h i s to ry t o wha t he calls t h e g eni us / Geniusrelation (the ar t is t ' s struggle with p a st ma st e rs ) and/ or t he g eni u s / g en iu s10 c i relation (his quarrel with th e dominant climate of op in ion) , Hartman ' sa ppr oa ch i s a no th e r a t temp t to reconcile wha t i s usua l ly c a ll ed history ofideas with a contextualist v iew o f l i t e ra ture . The innovat ion remains on e ofusing new or at l eas t no t common ly used t e rms whose usefulness is candidlyadmit ted : "They have some kinsh ip , obv ious ly , with race, milieu, and moment ,but t hey a re f re e of special sociological meaning .. . " (p.217) In other words,they s ugg e st s ome vague "context", y et a re flexible an d vague enough no t tocommit th e "sociological" er ro r of specifying it more concre te ly. Such amodification of te rminology might provide some distance to an outdated contextua l i sm, bu t i t ce r ta in ly is no t anywhere near p rov id ing" a sorely neededdefense of ar t" (p.199). Th e contrary migh t b e t ru e .Neither do th e remaining essays by Bloomfield and De Man ta ke u s v e ry f ar

in th e search of l i terary theory promised by th e book's t it le . F or a ll t he effortexpended on th e problem, they b ot h e nd u p reasser t ing very basic insightsindeed. In Bloomfield's essay it is th e existence of "The Two CognitiveDimensions of the Humanities" which leads to a warning against ei ther a"scientific" o r a "subjectivist" reduction of l i t e ra ry c r i t ic i sm. In an essay on'L i te rary History and Li terary Modernity', De Man even toys temporar i ly withth e idea of "a revision of t he not ion of history and, beyond that, o f t he n ot io n oft ime on which o ur i de a of history is based." (p.267) Bu t th e argument thatemerges in th e end i s t ha t "what we ca l l l i t e ra ry in te rp re tat ion - provided onlyit is a good interpretation - is in fact l i t e ra ry his tory." (p.267) This surpr is -i ng a n ti -c limax i s very well suited to express th e general perplexity wi th whichth e r ea d er i s lef t by th e whole book. Rather than o ff er in g , a s intended, "a f irmtheoretical base fo r dealing with l i t e ra ture" th e authors - with th e exception ofAbrams - merely reflect th e theoretical helplessness o f t he current l i t e ra ryestablishment i n v iew of th e present cr is is .

II.The s tu dy by Wesley Morris , 'Toward a New Historicism', must be seen as ana t tempt to supply addit ional theoretical substance to th e special type ofhistoricism Murray Krieger and - less influentially - R. H. Pearce have beenadvocating in recent years as an extension of contextualism. The book is th er ev is ed ver sion of a Ph . D. disser tat ion, and Morris acknowledges in hi s pre-f ac e t h at he is "indebted beyond measu re to Murray Krieger ." (p. ix ) He alsopoints ou t that th e purpose of t he book is t o p rov i de a synthesis "from which th efoundation fo r a vital new s tudy o f l i terature may b e cons tructed." (p. Vii) Whyis this vital new study necessary? For , "since t he h i gh t ide of t he N ewCriticism th e profession ha s been inundated by t rea t i ses that would re turn ust o t he sanity of his tor ical perspective .. we ar e no t much nearer unders tandin g th e c la ims we want to make." (p. 3) The r e ason , he claims , ha s to besought in a separat ion o f th e his tor ical and critical approaches to l i t e ra ture .Th e basic task, then, is to ove rcome th i s po la r it y . Morris ' defini t ion of th e"basic difficulty" i s r emin is cen t of Hartman ' s version of th e problem in askin g " .. . how ca n t he w or k be 'profoundly' i n fluenced by t hese ex t r in s icactivities and s t i l l be considered 'autonomous'?" ( p. 26 ) M os t of Morris 'attention and s pa ce i s g iv en t o an outline of how traditional and newer historicisms have dealt with this " du al m od e o f existence" of the l i terary work of art.

316 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3(1974) Amer ican and Engl ish Studies 317 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3 (1974) American and English S t u d i e ~

7/29/2019 Fluck American Literary

4/5

In th e f i rs t section o f t he book, Morr is d i scu sses wha t h e calls "The AmericanHistorical Tradition: V.L.Parr ington" , "American Marxian Literary Theory"and "The Critical Heritage of Van Wyck Brooks" . Par t 2 is devoted to "TheRediscovery of Historicism" by crit ics like J. C. Ransom, M. Bewley, R. W. B.Lewis , F. O. Matthiessen, P . Goodman, F. J. Hoffman, H. Levin, R. H. Pearceand , o f course, M. Krieger . On e ma y no t find th e selection entirely sat is -factory, bu t it is in this reconstruction of an American his tor icis t traditionthat the special usefulness of t h e s tudy l i es . No t surprisingly, th e adequacyof Morris ' treatment of t h e d i ff e ren t posi t ion s depends o n h ow close t hey havecome to hi s own defini tion of a possible solution. His discussion of Marxistl i terary t he or y, f or e xamp le , i s no t very helpful. The most prominent pos i tionin t hi s r e co n st r uc t io n i s a ct ua ll y g ra nt ed to M. Krieger , since "Kr i ege r spec ifically se ts f o r h imse lf th e task of un it i ng l i terary crit icism an d l i teraryhis tory." (p.196) Although Morris does no t t h ink that Krieger ha s managed toreso lve t h is po la r ity , I cannot se e '.hat hi s own tentative suggestions in t he lastsi x pages of the book go beyond Krieger ' s position in a ny significant sense.S in ce h e shares most of Krieger 's as sump t ions the conc lus ions a r e r a th e rs imilar . For example, Morris is no t satisfied with the way Kri ege r ba se s hi stheory on th e "organic miracle" - th e concept of poetry's miracu lous embod i ment of acculturated meanings and values of l anguage whil e a t t he same t imeth e old words ar e t rans formed "into a l i terally new Word, th e poem." (p. 211)Y et h e himself resor ts to familiar contextual ist mys t if icat ions whenever heat tempts to specify at least loosely wha t " t he new h i s to r i c is t c r i ti c is supposedto do . "A s the poet's v i si on, l ocked in the poetic st ructure , is freed from th eres tr ict ions of hi s soc ia l mi l ieu , so th e r eader ' s v is io n o f hi s world is s et f re eby th e st ructure of hi s response to th e work ." (p. 212 f. ) In other words," l i terature i n t he very materia l s of i ts e x is te n ce b ri ng s history i nt o be ing . "(p. 212) Only qua st ructure does l i terature contain history and, thus, onlyby studying "contextually successful poetry" can we ge t at th e t ru e h i s to r i ca lmeaning of l i terature.In my opinion there is a close c onne ct io n b etwe en t hi s t yp e o f contextualist

apology and the inabi l ity to solve th e "organicist-historicist dilemma" which he ,too, merely rea f fi rms . To this extent, hi s book bears obvious simi lari t ies toth e essays by Frye, Hartman, and De Man. For al l the at tempts toward"social context", "toward literary history" 01' "toward historic i sm" theirpos it ion unmistakably remains that of an essentially unrevised contextual ismwith a slight historicist make- u p. B e cau se they stick to th e contextualist 'sno ti on o f l i terary value, they dare no t move very fa r beyond it in relatingaesthetic and historica l aspects . Otherwise, they would be in danger of appearin g "non-literary", which in th e curren t cl imate of American cri t ica l opinioni s s ti ll th e wors t of al l possible cr imes . They wou ld , i n other words, fall preyto th e successful symbolic st ra teg ies developed by contextualism i n d ef en se o fit s own monopoly in l i terary education. I find it hard, therefore , to shareMorris I optimis t ic expectat ions of "a new movement that seems destined fo r arich flourishing. " (p. 13) There might b e m an y f u rthe r cont r ibu tions a t temp tingto reconci le literary st ructure and historical cont ex t . Ye t i t is difficult toconceive how t hey w i ll be able to move beyond Krieger a s lo ng as they dare no tchallenge the supposedly self -evident author i ty of contextualism and i ts e l ev a t i on o f cont ex tua l ly successful poetry to th e status of th e supreme culturalvalue.

318 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3(1974) American and English Studies

I I I .Eugene Goodhear t , in h i s loose ly coordinated collection of essays calledrCulture and t he Radi c al Cons c ience ', conside rs the preoccupation with"scient if ic" competence to have been damag ing t o t he case o f th e humanitiesa nd t o have r e sul t ed f rom th e failure of conservative cust odi ans o f tradition toarticulate a persuasive and "relevant" commitment. Both weaknesses, heclaims , have generated a growing disa ffect ion f rom cu ltu ra l t r ad i t ion and it sfailure to convincingly defend intellectual and l i terary t radi t ion agains t rad ica lthought. Despite obvious dangers and shortcomings, Goodheart re a li z es t h e reis "enough truth in th e challenge" to ask fo r a new and convincing answer.Thus, it is hi s main concern in most o f t he essays in this collection to facet h is chal lenge to culture in Amer ica . Refe rr ing mainly to crit ics like Roszak,Franklin , and C rews , h e a ga in and aga in points ou t basic and b y now wellknown shortcomings of the counter-culture: that th e counter-cul ture , at l eastin a few of it s manifestations, tends to confuse the culture it attacks withculture and education in general; and that by doi ng so it unwillingly joinsforces with th e technocratic and commercial attacks on culture. It i s obvioust ha t t he se rather genera l cha rges would p ro fi t f rom some d i ff e ren ti a tions andf rom s ome historica l perspect ive. Writ ten around 1968, they reflect thet emporary impact cu l tu r a l radicalism ha d on the American universit ies. Th epolemical circumstances in which most o f t he e s sa y s w er e w ri tt en mightexpl a in t he occasionally polemical overtones of Goodhear t 's at tack . To be sure ,th e chosen manifestations of the counte r -cu l tu r e ne i the r exhaust the a rgument so f t he counter-cu lture i t se lf , no r can they possibly do justice to al l th e otherattempts which give priority to th e ques ti on o f va lue and relevance. Goodhearth imsel f admi ts a s m uc h when h e compares th e American counter-cul ture withsuch British exponents of the culture-and-society approach a s RaymondWilliams and Richard Hoggar t to whom he a t t ribu te s r easonab le a t ti t udes whichcontrast favorably wit h t he sectarianism of th e American counter-cul ture . Bu tif true it would have been wor thwhile to l imit h is somewha t repetitive crit icismo f th e counter-culture a nd t o pu t more e f fo r t into discussing thos e approacheswhich have to be taken more seriously. In this regard it would also have beeninteresting no t to res tr ict t he analysi s of American cu ltu ra l radicalism toFranklin and Crews , b ut to include authors l ike Kampf, Lauter, Kessel, Ellis,and, above all, Ohmann, who of ten make a better c a se f or t h is posi t ion .Goodhear t ' s preoccupat ion with cultural radicalism is no t meant a s a defense

o f t he s t a t u s quo : "T o keep the traditional cultu re alive in us is no tnecessari ly .. . to affirm or ce lebr a te i t . " (p.15) In hi s own approach he aimsat mediating between t he c l aim fo r relevance and su sta in ing the in teg ri ty ofindependent disinterested l ibera l thought. G. Graff, in a recent essay onIAestheticism and Cultural Politics' (in: Social Research, 4 0, 1 97 3) praiseshi s work - together with that of Caut e and Jameson - as a promis ing sign "thatth e necessary revision and revitalization of Marxi s t aesthet i c theory m ay b eunder way .. . " (p .343) Unfortuna te ly , t hi s i s an amazi ng c la im f or a positionthat - as a supposedly " l ively al ternative" to th e current cult of me thod resor ts to "judicial criticism" rooted in taste and affection which seems tos t em d i rec tl y f r om Vic to r ian crit icism. It s essential method is characterizedas "pointing to a great moment in a work and isolating it , s o t ha t it c an b econtemplated and enjoyed. " (p . 53) Although Goodheart is careful n ot t o en courage a facile or self-indulgent impressionism, the boundary l ine be tween"a cult ivated personal response" and mere impress ionism remains obscure.

319 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3(1974) American and English Studies

7/29/2019 Fluck American Literary

5/5

Th e per sona l expe ri ence of th e crit ic ca n be an adequa te and significant ex -perience indeed, b ut n ot s im pl y b ec au se i t i s p er so na l e xp er ie nc e. l t is n ot th eattempt "t o evaluate t he s i gni f ic ance o r inte res t of th e work" or th e attempt tobe more than pu rely exege t ica l t h at h a s to be cr i t ic ized, bu t th e return to anelusive cr i ter ion like th e "personal cultivated response" t o wh ich t he de ci s ionabout th e text's significance i s de l ega t ed . Goodheart's argument ma y be a stepaway from contextualism, bu t it is a step in t he w rong direction, actually as tep backwards. It solves n on e o f th e existing problems and c rea te s severa lnew ones.Where do these volumes in search of l i terary t he or y l ea ve u s t he n? I t seems

natural to expect valuable new insights from books called 'I n Search of Li teraryTheory' o r 'Toward a New Historic i sm' . Ye t t he re i s nothing nove l about th ethree books. 1\0 new orientation is v is ib le . R a th e r, t he ir a pp ro ach es should beviewed as new s t ra tegies to r eas s e r t ol d and bas ical ly unrevised positions _whether contextualist, positivist, o r imp re ss i oni s t. The s o lu t io n s t he y reacha re th e convic t ions they s tar ted with. I f there is to be any progress , th e f i rs ttask would be to revise their underlying assumption about what t he func t io n ofl i terature is or s hou ld b e. For , i n t he final analysis, the curren t cr is is it no tprimari ly o ne o f th e scientific status or methodology of l i terary cri t ic i sm. Itis a crisis o f t he va lues f rom which l i t e ra ture h as b ee n traditionally approached.Hir sch , Abrams, and Bloomfie ld acknowledge th e central i ty of th e problembu t o f fe r no specific suggest ions at a ll fo r i ts solution. Frye, Hartman,De Man, and Morris implicitly or expl ic it ly keep insisting on "contextuallysuccessful l i t e ra ture" as a supreme value - in other words, on th e traditionalcontextualist apology. Goodhear t , f inal ly , retreats to a necessari ly vague"pe rsonal e l emen t". In other w or ds , th e m ain accomplishment of th e threebook seems to l ie i n e xpo si ng what is no t sufficient to solve th e dilemma _which mere ly s h ar p en s o u r notion of what needs to be done.

Approaches to Poetics .Edited by Seymour Cha tman .New York : Co lumbi a University Press , 1972

'Approaches to Poet ics ' is an odd ly neu t ra l t i tl e fo r this an tho logy, whi chrecords the impact of s t ruc tura l methodology on th e speakers o f t he E ngl is hInstitute o f 1972 . That impa c t w as n ot without i t s s hocks , as these l ivelypapers testify, and th e resul t ing debate forms a good introduction to what ha sbe en ca ll ed th e s tructural is t controversy in th e United States. 1The groundwork fo r t ha t debat e is laid by Seymour Chatman himself in hi s

introductory not e. Ch atman i s p e rf e ct ly c l e ar about th e extent of s t ruc tura l i s tclaims and th e kind of controversy they ar e l ikely to raise. He refersimmediately to Todorov, t he o nl y continental crit ic d i r ec t ly r ep res en ted here ,an d in par t icular to Todorov 's c l aim t o h av e found in structuralism a scientificmet ho d f or t he s tu dy o f l i t e ra ture . In hi s introduction we hear th e echo ofTodorov' s ca tegor i cal s t a temen t in th e final essay: "The st ructura l analysis ofl i terature is nothing other than an attempt to t ransform l i terary studies into ascientific discip l ine." (p.154) This s tatement h as t he a ut he nt ic s t ruc tura l i s tr ing, and in i t Ame ri ca n crit ics often hear a cal l - to-arms.

320 KRITIKON LITTERARUM 3(1974) American and Engl ish Studies

to