论文部分内容阅读
Abstract:Cultural Studies are becoming more and more popular for critics to interpret literary works. This essay discusses the difference between one major approach of Cultural Studies, the New Historicism and its counterpart, the traditional historical approach. Then this new critical theory is applied to analyze Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The essay argues that two minor characters in Hamlet are marginalized by Shakespeare. They become the pawns in the power struggle between the two antagonists, Claudius and Hamlet.
Key Words:Cultural Studies; New Historicism; Hamlet; Marginalization
The 1960s saw a revolutionary change in literary theory. Since then Cultural Studies have become a new and useful approach to interpret literature. Before 1960s, Formalistic approach, or called New Criticism had dominated the literary critical circles for almost four decades. The New Criticism paid little attention to a text’s historical context and the feelings of a text’s readers. Unlike the New Criticism and other critical approaches, Cultural Studies is an interdisciplinary methodology which includes the theories of British Cultural Materialism, New Historicism, American Multiculturalism, Marxism, sociology, gender studies, postcolonial studies, etc. According to the scholars of Cultural Studies, “each society or culture contains within itself a dominant cultural group who determines that culture’s ideology or, using the Marxist term, its hegemony: its dominant values, its sense of right and wrong, and its sense of personal self-worth” (Bressler, 2004:198). All people in a culture have to conform to the dominant culture. However, it is a pity that not all the people and classes belong to the dominant culture, such as African Americans, women of ethnic groups, the poor and other disadvantaged people. The scholars and critics of Cultural Studies focus their research on the literary works of those writers in which antagonists are suppressed and discriminated by their dominant cultures or ruling class.
New Historicism: A New Literary Criticism of Cultural Studies
Cultural Poetics is one of the major approaches of Cultural Studies. Cultural Poetics can be divided into two main branches: British Cultural Materialism and American New Historicism. Both of these two groups point out that literature must be analyzed in their appropriated historical and social contexts. British Cultural Materialism bases its theory on Marxism and is overtly political in its aims. American New Historicism is less political than its British counterpart. New Historicism came to be known as “the return to history in literary studies” (Gu Hongli, 2004:232).
Led by such American scholars as Stephen Greenblatt and Louis Montrose, New Historicism challenges two kinds of literary theory: old historicism and New Criticism. Old historicism was once prevalent in the 19th century and the early 20th century. Old historicism critics believe that history only serves as background to literature. The primary target of the literary study is the text, the art object itself. For these critics, the historical background of a text is only secondary in importance, because they think that a text could objectively reflect the history of its times. After old historicism lost its prevalence, New Criticism began to dominate American literary criticism from the early 1930s to the mid 1970s. New Criticism regards a literary text as an independent work of art, not necessarily related to its author, its readers and the historical period in which it was written. Scholars of New Criticism maintain that a literary text is highly structured and contains its meaning in itself; by a close textual analysis without considering its historical context, critics can discover the meaning of a literary work.
In disclaiming above assumptions of old historicism and New Criticism, the scholars of New Historicism hold that literature is not a simple objective reflection of the reality. Instead, any literary work is a product of the author’s negotiation and exchange with his historical period, and a text is the author’s subjective representation of the social reality, imbued with author’s personal experience and his own understanding of the reality. For New Historicism critics, a literary text is not an independent work of art but a social product which is closely related to its historical context. They claim that the relationship between history and literature is dynamic, reciprocal and dialectical. Lois Tyson, a New Historicism scholar once pointed out, “Literary texts shape and are shaped by its historical contexts. They create each other and are mutually constitutive.”(Zhang Zhongzai, 2002:627) On the one hand, a literary work is shaped by its historical times in which it was written. On the other hand, it will produce an impact on the society and readers. Therefore, the research object of New Historicism is different from the former critical approaches. Charles Bressler, a scholar of literary theory, summarizes the analytical framework of New Historicism: “The critics of New Historicism view an aesthetic work as a social production, for them a text’s meaning resides in the cultural system composed of the interlocking discourses of its historical context, its author, the text itself and its reader”(p.189).
Therefore, unlike the traditional Historical-Biographical approach which focuses on the historical facts and neglects the careful text analysis, the New Historicism claims that there is a complicated connection between a literary text and its social-cultural context. Thus, for a better interpretation, the New Historicism not only stresses the analysis of a text but also the text’s historical and social factors. In addition, the New Historicism asserts that history is one of many interrelated discourses, such as the discourses of sociology and politics. There are some inherent contradictory forces or power struggles in literary works. Critics must analyze and uncover the political and ideological elements in these works. Therefore, Guerin commented, “this sort of constant attention to dualism, dynamism, dialogism makes New Historicism exciting” (p.250).
Interpretation of Two Minor Characters in Hamlet from New Historicism
In Hamlet, two minor characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the former Hamlet schoolmates, are marginalized. They become the pawns and victims in the power struggle between the two antagonists, Claudius and Hamlet. Before the Glorious Revolution in 1688, England had witnessed the power struggles for centuries. During the reign of Elizabeth I, the second Earl of Essex was executed because of his attempt of rebellion. Mary, the queen of Scots, Elizabeth’s relative, was also executed. Later, the king, Charles I was beheaded. In such historical context, we can easily understand why Shakespeare’s work incorporates so many power struggles. For ordinary people of that period, like Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern, they were caught up in these massive oppositions. In Hamlet, Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern have been students at Wittenberg. Claudius asks them to return to Denmark. Either used or forced by Claudius, they pry from Hamlet, trying to discover his inner thoughts, especially his ambition about the crown. Hamlet foils them by his own questioning. Claudius orders them to send Hamlet from Denmark to England. Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern carry a letter to the King of England, which is a death warrant for Hamlet signed by Claudius. Though they may not know the content of the letter, Hamlet suspects them and substitutes a forged document with their names instead of his. Hamlet thinks himself doing this correctly rather than as a murder, because he regards his former schoolfellows as pawns on the chessboard with Claudius. He never regrets the death of his school friends. He once openly calls Rosenscrantz “a sponge that can be used and squeezed by him”. Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern are archetypal people, caught up in forces beyond their control, seeking constantly to know who they are, why are there, and where they are going. They become the victims of the political struggles. Their fate lead them nowhere, except to death. Their constant motive is to please the king Claudius, the power that has brought them here. However, they displease the prince Hamlet, who will undermine them. Shakespeare marginalized these two characters as pawns on a chessboard. From this example, we can see that the traditional Historical-Biographical approach could not give us this new insight into Hamlet. Unlike Cultural Studies, the traditional historical approach only tells us some historical facts.
All in all, different from the traditional historical theories, Cultural Studies is dynamic and dialogic. It highlights the prejudices, discriminations and repression of the disadvantaged people caused by the dominant culture or ruling class. It gives a more complete understanding of a text than do the traditional historical theories.
References:
[1]Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice [M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2004.
[2]Gu, Hongli. A New Historicist and Cultural Materialist Study of Norman Mailer’s Work [M]. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press, 2004.
[3]Zhang, Zhongzai. Selective Readings in the 20th Century Western Critical Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
[4]Guerin, Wilfred L, etc. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press, 2004.
[5]Shakespeare, William. Hamlet [M]. London: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Key Words:Cultural Studies; New Historicism; Hamlet; Marginalization
The 1960s saw a revolutionary change in literary theory. Since then Cultural Studies have become a new and useful approach to interpret literature. Before 1960s, Formalistic approach, or called New Criticism had dominated the literary critical circles for almost four decades. The New Criticism paid little attention to a text’s historical context and the feelings of a text’s readers. Unlike the New Criticism and other critical approaches, Cultural Studies is an interdisciplinary methodology which includes the theories of British Cultural Materialism, New Historicism, American Multiculturalism, Marxism, sociology, gender studies, postcolonial studies, etc. According to the scholars of Cultural Studies, “each society or culture contains within itself a dominant cultural group who determines that culture’s ideology or, using the Marxist term, its hegemony: its dominant values, its sense of right and wrong, and its sense of personal self-worth” (Bressler, 2004:198). All people in a culture have to conform to the dominant culture. However, it is a pity that not all the people and classes belong to the dominant culture, such as African Americans, women of ethnic groups, the poor and other disadvantaged people. The scholars and critics of Cultural Studies focus their research on the literary works of those writers in which antagonists are suppressed and discriminated by their dominant cultures or ruling class.
New Historicism: A New Literary Criticism of Cultural Studies
Cultural Poetics is one of the major approaches of Cultural Studies. Cultural Poetics can be divided into two main branches: British Cultural Materialism and American New Historicism. Both of these two groups point out that literature must be analyzed in their appropriated historical and social contexts. British Cultural Materialism bases its theory on Marxism and is overtly political in its aims. American New Historicism is less political than its British counterpart. New Historicism came to be known as “the return to history in literary studies” (Gu Hongli, 2004:232).
Led by such American scholars as Stephen Greenblatt and Louis Montrose, New Historicism challenges two kinds of literary theory: old historicism and New Criticism. Old historicism was once prevalent in the 19th century and the early 20th century. Old historicism critics believe that history only serves as background to literature. The primary target of the literary study is the text, the art object itself. For these critics, the historical background of a text is only secondary in importance, because they think that a text could objectively reflect the history of its times. After old historicism lost its prevalence, New Criticism began to dominate American literary criticism from the early 1930s to the mid 1970s. New Criticism regards a literary text as an independent work of art, not necessarily related to its author, its readers and the historical period in which it was written. Scholars of New Criticism maintain that a literary text is highly structured and contains its meaning in itself; by a close textual analysis without considering its historical context, critics can discover the meaning of a literary work.
In disclaiming above assumptions of old historicism and New Criticism, the scholars of New Historicism hold that literature is not a simple objective reflection of the reality. Instead, any literary work is a product of the author’s negotiation and exchange with his historical period, and a text is the author’s subjective representation of the social reality, imbued with author’s personal experience and his own understanding of the reality. For New Historicism critics, a literary text is not an independent work of art but a social product which is closely related to its historical context. They claim that the relationship between history and literature is dynamic, reciprocal and dialectical. Lois Tyson, a New Historicism scholar once pointed out, “Literary texts shape and are shaped by its historical contexts. They create each other and are mutually constitutive.”(Zhang Zhongzai, 2002:627) On the one hand, a literary work is shaped by its historical times in which it was written. On the other hand, it will produce an impact on the society and readers. Therefore, the research object of New Historicism is different from the former critical approaches. Charles Bressler, a scholar of literary theory, summarizes the analytical framework of New Historicism: “The critics of New Historicism view an aesthetic work as a social production, for them a text’s meaning resides in the cultural system composed of the interlocking discourses of its historical context, its author, the text itself and its reader”(p.189).
Therefore, unlike the traditional Historical-Biographical approach which focuses on the historical facts and neglects the careful text analysis, the New Historicism claims that there is a complicated connection between a literary text and its social-cultural context. Thus, for a better interpretation, the New Historicism not only stresses the analysis of a text but also the text’s historical and social factors. In addition, the New Historicism asserts that history is one of many interrelated discourses, such as the discourses of sociology and politics. There are some inherent contradictory forces or power struggles in literary works. Critics must analyze and uncover the political and ideological elements in these works. Therefore, Guerin commented, “this sort of constant attention to dualism, dynamism, dialogism makes New Historicism exciting” (p.250).
Interpretation of Two Minor Characters in Hamlet from New Historicism
In Hamlet, two minor characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the former Hamlet schoolmates, are marginalized. They become the pawns and victims in the power struggle between the two antagonists, Claudius and Hamlet. Before the Glorious Revolution in 1688, England had witnessed the power struggles for centuries. During the reign of Elizabeth I, the second Earl of Essex was executed because of his attempt of rebellion. Mary, the queen of Scots, Elizabeth’s relative, was also executed. Later, the king, Charles I was beheaded. In such historical context, we can easily understand why Shakespeare’s work incorporates so many power struggles. For ordinary people of that period, like Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern, they were caught up in these massive oppositions. In Hamlet, Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern have been students at Wittenberg. Claudius asks them to return to Denmark. Either used or forced by Claudius, they pry from Hamlet, trying to discover his inner thoughts, especially his ambition about the crown. Hamlet foils them by his own questioning. Claudius orders them to send Hamlet from Denmark to England. Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern carry a letter to the King of England, which is a death warrant for Hamlet signed by Claudius. Though they may not know the content of the letter, Hamlet suspects them and substitutes a forged document with their names instead of his. Hamlet thinks himself doing this correctly rather than as a murder, because he regards his former schoolfellows as pawns on the chessboard with Claudius. He never regrets the death of his school friends. He once openly calls Rosenscrantz “a sponge that can be used and squeezed by him”. Rosenscrantz and Guidenstern are archetypal people, caught up in forces beyond their control, seeking constantly to know who they are, why are there, and where they are going. They become the victims of the political struggles. Their fate lead them nowhere, except to death. Their constant motive is to please the king Claudius, the power that has brought them here. However, they displease the prince Hamlet, who will undermine them. Shakespeare marginalized these two characters as pawns on a chessboard. From this example, we can see that the traditional Historical-Biographical approach could not give us this new insight into Hamlet. Unlike Cultural Studies, the traditional historical approach only tells us some historical facts.
All in all, different from the traditional historical theories, Cultural Studies is dynamic and dialogic. It highlights the prejudices, discriminations and repression of the disadvantaged people caused by the dominant culture or ruling class. It gives a more complete understanding of a text than do the traditional historical theories.
References:
[1]Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice [M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2004.
[2]Gu, Hongli. A New Historicist and Cultural Materialist Study of Norman Mailer’s Work [M]. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press, 2004.
[3]Zhang, Zhongzai. Selective Readings in the 20th Century Western Critical Theory [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
[4]Guerin, Wilfred L, etc. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press, 2004.
[5]Shakespeare, William. Hamlet [M]. London: Oxford University Press, 1980.