Contemporary Literary and Cultural Theory: From Structuralism to Ecocriticism

by Pramod K. Nayar

Contemporary Literary and Cultural From Structuralism to Ecocriticism is a comprehensive survey of the major theoretical schools that have shaped our ideas about literary and cultural phenomena since the mid-twentieth century. It traces the origin and development of a specific critical approach, with a special focus on key thinkers. Chapters on critical race studies and ecocriticis have been included. It is useful for students of English literature, mass communication, history, sociology, gender studies as well as for general readers.

Genres: Nonfiction

282 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Osore Misanthrope · Rating 5 out of 5]

Овако се пише уџбеник, јасним излагањем суштинских идеја, концепата, термина и циљева у истраживањима различитих приступа, од (пост)структурализма, психоаналитичке критике, преко феминизма, марксизма, постколонијалне и квир теорије, до новог историцизма & критичког материјализма, расних студија и екокритике.

Зденко Лешић раздваја теорију књижевности од књижевне теорије која “се не бави систематским изучавањем књижевности као уметности” и не представља “ни вредновање релативног значаја књижевних производа, ни интелектуалну историју, ни моралну филозофију, ни социјалну прогностику, већ све то заједно помешано у нови жанр”. Управо оваква књижевна и културна теорија представља одлично проширење Лешићеве Теорије књижевности која је више фокусирана на анатомију текста, партикуларни структуралистички аспект, спрам дискурзивног приступа и екологије текста. Иако поседујем Књижевне теорије ХХ века, определио сам се за књигу на енглеском јер је новија, а тиме и ажурнија (говори о екокритици), али и троструко краћа (и довољна да се наоштри прибор за дисекцију текста).

Импресије + some highlights/peculiarities:

1. Структурализам 🕵🏻‍♀️
Абецеда анализирања текста, ради се по дифолту и поред идентификације структурних елемената текста подразумева познавање детаља (нешто се мора испустити приликом првог читања, зато експерт чешља текст више пута, а неко прави и статистичке анализе).

2. Постструктурализам и деконструкција 🤸🏻‍♂️
Вербална гимнастика где се тражи однос између означитеља (речи) и означеног (значења речи), као и све шупљине, неправилности, контрадикторности и места неодређености у тексту. Циљ је да се докаже једно, а да се онда исто то оповргне (деконструише).

1. и 2. метод не виђам често у критикама у свом изолованом, hardcore облику.

3. Психоаналитичка критика 🙈🙉🙊
Фројд са фалусима не пије воду. Несвесног у тексту свакако има. Опширније у Psihologija i umetnost.

4. Феминизми 🟣
Приступ у тренду, мени пријемчив.

“We assume it is ‘natural’ to be ‘father’ or ‘mother’. At no point are we alert to the fact that perhaps these are only roles that the social order has invented so that the woman will do most of the housework and caring! When we accept the role as natural we have become ‘subjects’ within ideology. The problem, of course, is that we see ourselves as having voluntarily chosen the role, that we are free and that it is natural. This is precisely how ideology works: by naturalizing our constructed roles. This construction of subjects through ideology is what Althusser termed ‘interpellation’. Interpellation is the process of consenting to ideology, accepting it and not being aware of it. It makes the subject believe that s/he is an independent being and not a subject at all controlled by outside forces. In other words, ideology interpellates the individual as a subject but makes her/him believe s/he is a free agent. (…) Thus, the woman is ‘interpellated’ as ‘girl-child’, daughter, mother, wife but made to believe that these are her ‘natural’ roles. In fact, she is carefully nurtured into these roles—a process of ‘culturation’—by being made to adopt certain postures, perform certain kinds of function and behave in certain ways. Her subject-position as woman is created in advance of her, and she is simply inserted into the ideology of patriarchy even though she never realizes this.”
🤣
“The Cyberfeminist Manifesto for the 21st Century
We are the modern cunt/ positive anti reason/ unbounded unleashed unforgiving/ we see art with/ our cunt we make art with our cunt/ we believe in jouissance madness holiness and poetry/ we are/ the virus of the new world disorder/ rupturing the symbolic from within/ saboteurs of big daddy mainframe/ the clitoris is a direct line to the matrix/ VNS MATRIX/ terminators of the moral codes/ mercenaries of slime/ go down on the altar of abjection/ probing the visceral temple we speak in tongues/ infiltrating disrupting disseminating/ corrupting the discourse/ we are the future cunt.”

5. Марксизми ⚒
Негде исувише категорично, а свакако неправилно имплементирано у комунизму.

“Big business corporations make their money from capitalist and ruthless business practices (including low wages). Then, when they have made their profits, they sponsor or contribute to political parties during elections (commonly referred to as ‘donations’). Once ‘their’ candidates are elected these candidates push particular policies through the Congress. These policies, which are a part of the ‘superstructure’, include things like tax cuts for big businesses. Thus, the ‘base’ has been strengthened.”

“Louis Althusser and the later Marxists proposed that the cultural realm enjoys a certain degree of autonomy from the economic base. It is indeed determined by the base, but it is determined only in the last instance. That is, the economic base only provides a general framework within which cultural practices and forms appear.”

“‘Culture industry’ refers to mass culture where entertainment and its forms convert individuals into passive consumers. Pleasure and fun are ‘standardized’ market ‘products’ and the individuals are obedient subjects who consume them. The ‘culture industry’, therefore, produces unthinking masses of people who accept commodified sentiments and entertainments as ‘natural’. The concept is indebted to Marxist views of the function of ideology.”

“Raymond Williams (1973) demonstrated how in seventeenth-century English poetry and in eighteenth-century arts the landscape becomes a dominant aesthetic field. Landscapes with manor houses were treated as ideal, aesthetically appealing and attractive. These landscapes included rolling meadows, gardens, pastures with domesticated animals and, on many occasions, the landowner (one only has to look at the paintings of Thomas Gainsborough here). What is interesting, according to Williams, is that the landscape is rendered as something beautiful and perfect by evacuating it of its key people: the labourers. Labourers, Williams notes, were absent from such paintings and poems, or, if they were, they would only be marked as dots in a distance, thus reducing their ‘role’ in the aesthetics of the paintings.
Thus, the aesthetics of landscape masked the social fact that the pasture or the garden was the result of active labour. It marked the manor house or the landscape as connected only to the landowner and his family and removed all ‘problematic’ characters like labourers from it. There is no dirt, sweat or pain (features of hard labour) but only beauty, cleanliness and pleasure (an excellent example would be Mr and Mrs Andrews by Thomas Gainsborough).
Aesthetic theories about art have always supported such a depiction by arguing (as John Constable was to say) against the representation of particulars (which would include labour). Art, aestheticians such as Shaftesbury, Addison and Steele, Mark Akenside, Immanuel Kant and of course the English Romantic writers argued, was about beauty not sweaty, tiring labour. Concepts of beauty and aesthetic theories themselves are, therefore, ideological because they support the dominant classes when they argue in favour of representations only of the upper classes. Aesthetics, in this sense, is an ideological device that naturalizes the social conditions of production where the landowner is ‘naturally’ the owner and the fields are ‘naturally’ beautiful precisely because there are no labourers. This is precisely what Terry Eagleton is gesturing at when he speaks of the ‘ideology of the aesthetic’ (1991b).”

6. Постколонијална теорија ⚓

“Fanon was also prophetic enough to argue that the idea of a ‘national literature’ and ‘national culture’ might result in xenophobia and intolerance. He proposed that national culture had a limited value: It could help define native culture against the overwhelming assault of the colonial. However, the return to a pre-colonial past through the espousal of a pre-colonial national culture did not guarantee that the working classes and the oppressed would benefit. For such a national culture to be effective, it has to account for and remedy the economic conditions of the working classes.”

“The native began to look at him/herself through the eyes of the European because s/he, the native, had accepted truth of all the representations made by the European. Effectively, this meant that Orientalism achieved the acquiescence of the natives because it convinced the natives that all the stereotypes about their cultures were true, and that they needed the Europeans.”

“Bhabha argues that the festish/phobia structure of colonial relations results in a condition where the white man seeks and desires the Other, while at the same time wishes to erase the difference. This results in stereotypes such as that of the inscrutable native—suggesting an unknowable, radically different Other and the vulnerable, innocent or childlike native—suggesting a knowable, controllable subject of colonial power.”

“According to Bhabha, this hybridized native who refuses to return the colonial gaze, and who refuses to acknowledge the colonizer's position and authority, is placed in a position of in-betweenness: between ‘adopted’ Englishness and ‘original’ Indiannness. Mimicry that results in this dualism of deference and disobedience is what Bhabha sees as resistance. This hybridity creates a ‘third space’, a space of relations (between colonizer and colonized). This is a site where
• colonial identity and native identity meet and often contest,
• colonial discourse is both/at once asserted and subverted,
• there is deference and difference,
• there is a split and a negotiation (within colonial discourse),
• mimicry and mockery occur.”

7. Квир теорија 🏳‍🌈
У школи нас нису учили да хомосексуалност није болест и да представља нормалну варијацију у људском понашању, а не девијацију. Хомосексуалност се јавља код разних животиња, како кичмењака, тако и бескичмењака, и зато јесте природна. Није пронађен органски поремећај, недостатак или генска мутација у основи овог понашања, а како је сложено и полигенско (као и било који други бихевиорални фенотип), тешко се може утврдити његов јасан узрок, било наследни или средински. Знајући да је дихотомија урођено/стечено лажна, можемо очекивати релевантност комбинације ових фактора и бацити детерминизам у смеће, заједно са родним конвенцијама. Род је друштвени конструкт. Род је флуидан. (Ко не верује нека присвоји андрогени стил, изађе на улицу и спреми се да је/га ослове у погрешном лицу.) Mills MC. How do genes affect same-sex behavior?. Science. 2019 Aug 30;365(6456):869-70.
Balter M. Can epigenetics explain homosexuality puzzle? Science. 2015 Aug;350(6257):148–.

“• Bio-medical discourse first identifies, declares and enunciates a body as ‘male’.
• Later discourses of family, fashion ensure that this body dresses, behaves in fulfilment of this first identity given to it.
• The body enacts various roles that suit the first identity.
• The cumulative effect of the many discourse-regulated roles is the Male Body.
• This Male Body is now deemed to be ‘natural’: it has always been male.
• Thus, a constructed identity—one given by the many discourses—is deemed to be naturally male.”

8. Нови историцизам и културни материјализам 🏛

“New Historicism is a critical approach that locates power relations in society as they are reflected in literary and other texts of the period, suggesting that texts mask social conditions just as social conditions are informed and shaped by textual representations of monarchy, class and race. It proposes that texts and contexts must be read together as sites of power relations and all texts as constituting the social configuration and social exchange, and, therefore, to separate literary texts as purely ‘imaginative’ is to delink them from other texts that embody the same themes.
Cultural Materialists accuse the New Historicists of being pessimist, of seeing no way out of the unequal power relation. They suggest that texts must be read as sites of power relations, but as they connect with the present. They, therefore, see critical theory and analysis as social actions for contemporary times.”

9. Критичке расне студије ⚫🟤🟡⚪
У школи су нас погрешно учили да постоје људске расе у биолошком смислу. Истина је да људске расе не постоје јер су веће (генотипске и фенотипске) разлике унутар група ("људи једне боје"), него између група ("људи различитих боја", нпр. бели versus црни).

“Greenblatt demonstrates how, in the context of his encounter with the natives of America, Columbus quickly turned the absence of a common language to his advantage. He records how, when he claimed, in the Spanish language (which the natives did not understand, obviously), the land for his monarch, the natives did not disagree. Columbus recorded: ‘I was not contradicted.’ Greenblatt suggests that this absence of contradiction is taken as a serious fact before Columbus makes his legal claim. Greenblatt writes: “The absence of “contradiction” had a specific force: such a fact would be important in establishing for the Spanish crown a legal claim to the newly discovered islands by the ‘voluntary choice’ of the original inhabitants.” Columbus thus improvises his speech act into becoming a legal claim for the lands.
Improvisation is a mode of identity-making through which individuals and groups retain their power—appropriating the structures of the relation in order to validate their claims and co-opting resistance in order to manage it, and, thereby, creating their own identity.”

“Genres and texts are elements that contribute to the circulation of power and ideologies. They reinforce power relations through the creation and dissemination of myths and fantasies, which are then assimilated by the society of the time.”

“Esposito's affirmative bíos, in contrast to the immunization paradigm, is the condition where the individual is not definable outside the political relationship with those that share the condition of life. This bíos is the living common to all beings. This affirmative bíos is a communal form of life where we see that our life is connected to, indeed dependent upon, others. For this, Esposito invests the process of individuation with something more. Esposito argues that the individual will be the site or space in which individuation takes place thanks to other living forms. The human body is to be seen in a series of relations with the bodies of others.”

10. Екокритика ♻🌍💚

“Arne Naess formulated the key concerns of this philosophy [deep ecology]. His major ideas are as follows:
• Human life forms are an integral part of the earth.
• Human forms must expand to include more of the others (this gestures at a certain spiritual tendency in Deep Ecology).
• There has to be an emotional relation with and response to nature and not merely a rational-intellectual one.
• Both human and non-human life forms have intrinsic values.
• The value of non-human life is not dependent upon the usefulness of these life forms for humans.
• While human life can flourish with smaller numbers of humans, for non-human forms to flourish, it requires smaller numbers of humans. That is, ecosystems in nature can only tolerate a certain level of human activity or interference.
• The emphasis should be on appreciating the quality of life.
Deep Ecology believes in the fundamental interconnectedness of all life forms and natural features. It believes that anthropocentric thinking has alienated humans from their natural environment and caused them to exploit it.”

“Lawrence Buell suggests four criteria for evaluating a text as embodying an environmental consciousness:
1. The non-human dimension is an actual presence in the text and not merely a façade – thus implying that human and non-human worlds are integrated.
2. The human interest is not privileged over everything else.
3. The text shows humans as accountable to the environment and any actions they perform that damages the ecosystem.
4. Environment is a process rather than a static condition.”

“William Rueckart proposes specific ecological concepts that can be used to read poetry.
1. A poem is stored energy, and reading is a process of energy transfer, and classroom work must tap into the poem's energy to develop creativity and community, where all are interlinked by the pathways of energy (not unlike that in nature).
2. As readers, just as we ask questions of pedagogy, history and social justice, we need to ask questions like: how are we carrying out our responsibility towards the planet when we read literature? Is there an ecological vision here?
3. Literature has to be seen within an ecological vision.”

[Bhumika Kapoor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like the open door on the cover the book unlocks all the doors towards contemporary theory. From Structuralism, Post structuralism, deconstruction, to feminism, marxism, postcolonial, race and ecocriticism this book develops each and every theory in way that is practical with various examples. The highlights presented along with the text make it an interesting read.
My experience with this book has been one which has given me immense pleasure and satisfaction. The satisfaction of now knowing what actually the theory is. All it needs is your time and patience, and trust me you won't regret investing time in this.
Super awesome book. Thank you so much for this book Mr. Nayar.

[Asif · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will imbue you with the charm of mundane theory. Bit paradoxical comment to start a paragraph with, but yes it has presented all the complex theories lucidly by simultaneously dragging examples from the Indian context. Also another positive aspect is that it has covered a large sphere, from the origin to the present scenario e.g., for Feminism it started with Mary Wollstonecraft and stopped at the cyberfeminism.
Apart from the Deconstruction, postmodernism, Post-structuralism, which for an unknown cause Nayar has merged into barely 30 pages, am pretty much satisfied.

[Ritu · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favourite literary theory books. And a must-read for all Literature students.

The first theory book that I have studied cover to cover! My gratitude for Prof. P. K. Nayar is immense. The book is clear, concise, emphatic, and it has heart and soul. I enjoyed it thoroughly and it is going to be my life long companion.

For someone who had never touched theory in my five years of grad and post-grad, this was a blessing. From being completely clueless, the book helped me grasp difficult concepts with ease and helped me better understand my field. I have owned the copy for a couple of years and have read some chapters multiple times. And I have recommended it always to my friends, students, and strangers.

I am eager to read Postcolonial Literature: An Introduction by Prof Nayar next.

[Pooh Reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

Contemporary Literary and cultural theory by Pramod K. Nayar.
This book gives you quite good and easy introduction about literary theories from structuralism to ecocriticism. The book talks about the theories in general, what they Are, concerns, ideas not portraying any arguments about theories but defining it concepts.
The language is really easy and comprehensive.
I would suggest this to anyone who is just starting the theory, read this before reading literary essays by theorists, it will give you a good idea about certain concepts which are little fussy and tricky in study of theories after that one can go on to read those essays of gramsci, Derrida, said, Foucault and other so many geniuses for deeper understanding.
Suggestion: best for the beginners!
Happy reading!

[Ranjan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A comprehensive view of all the major theories, explained in a language which is easily accessible with appropriate Indian examples wherever possible. It brought a tremendous amount of clarity to a lot of issues which I was grappling with all these years, putting them in a proper perspective. Reading it will surely change the way you look at things, and not just literature. This book is going to be my constant companion now. I wish I had this book when we were students of Comparative Literature in Jadavpur University, Calcutta, way back in the 80s.

[Manisha · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is perfect for an overview of Literrary Theory post Structuralism. The book doesnt put its view on the reader just briefly and yet deeply summarizes the theories. What I loved is, though it i divided into chapters but it doesn't refrain from doing a comprehensive study.
I would recommend it to all the english literature enthusiasts and those who want to study Literary Theory but get confused. The author simplifies every possible term and makes the reader understand even the nuisances.

[Pilchu Sarjom Hopon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is more contemporary than Barry's book in terms of content and theory. Also Nayar has included some important developments of the literary and cultural theories of India in response to the major Western theories.

[Shubhrika · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for literature students

[Masud Shaon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great work for contemporary literature researchers and students.

[Amit Dewan · Rating 4 out of 5]

very good information about literary and critical theory.

[Pragya Mittal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nayar sir knows how Indian classrooms are and he left no stone unturned to simplify each and every theory in detail. Its much better than Peter Barry.