26 Shakespeare Studies Today of its own exhilarating"("Being Interdisciplinary,"p.242).In 2008, however,Fish's attitude toward this expansion of critical horizons has become notably ambivalent,more inclined to acknowledge "its casu- alties"as well as its benefits ("French Theory").In this respect,he expresses qualms similar to Said's and Greenblatt's described in the Introduction,and to many other commentators as well,who have been with increasing regularity asking skeptical questions whether the con- textualist turn is giving us more freedom than we can manage. Postlewait and Davis,for instance,suggest that the "global reach"of performativity has made the idea too powerfully inclusive for its-or our-own good:"it is pleasing to subsume the various scholarly dis- ciplines in the arts,humanities,social sciences,and sciences under the rubric of performance,but...all human thought and behavior can- not be usefully explained by the single idea of performativity"(p.33). Comparable doubts have been expressed about the infinitely expand- able range of material now subsumed under the idea of culture.W.J.T. Mitchell is concerned about the extent to which"culture,"with its claim to constitute"a homogeneous field or grid of relationships governed by a single principle,"is"taking on renewed force as the master-concept for the humanities and social sciences."For Geertz,the"Tylorean kind of pot-au-feu theorizing about culture,"though it was"a seminal idea," has lost "the grandiose,all-promising scope,the infinite versatility of apparent application,it once had"and now leads to a"conceptual morass.”The“whole discipline of anthropology,”he adds,“has been increasingly concerned to limit,specify,focus,and contain"the term ("Thick Description,"p.4).According to Stephen Greenblatt,whose piece on "Culture"takes Tylor's definition in full as its starting point, "the term as Tylor uses it is almost impossibly vague and encompassing" and thus inadequate to serve as"the backbone of an innovative critical practice"(p.225).As William B.Warner and Clifford Siskin put it, "The strategic vagueness of the term and concept 'culture,'which was so important to the inclusiveness,emancipatory promise,and growth of cultural studies,can no longer take literary studies where it needs to go”(P.95). This apprehension,that the expanded subject matter of cultural stud- ies actually diminishes its explanatory power,is given a presciently sys- tematic expression by Fredric Jameson in a 1984 piece on "Periodizing the6Os.”For Jameson,the ubiquity of“culture”may be traced back to an earlier master-concept-"theory."From the pan-textualist posi- tion of theory,with all knowledge immersed in a sea of signs,the claim of any "particular traditional discipline"to "express something
26 Shakespeare Studies Today of its own exhilarating” (“Being Interdisciplinary,” p. 242). In 2008, however, Fish’s attitude toward this expansion of critical horizons has become notably ambivalent, more inclined to acknowledge “its casualties” as well as its benefits (“French Theory”). In this respect, he expresses qualms similar to Said’s and Greenblatt’s described in the Introduction, and to many other commentators as well, who have been with increasing regularity asking skeptical questions whether the contextualist turn is giving us more freedom than we can manage. Postlewait and Davis, for instance, suggest that the “global reach” of performativity has made the idea too powerfully inclusive for its—or our—own good: “it is pleasing to subsume the various scholarly disciplines in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and sciences under the rubric of performance, but . . . all human thought and behavior cannot be usefully explained by the single idea of performativity” (p. 33). Comparable doubts have been expressed about the infinitely expandable range of material now subsumed under the idea of culture. W. J. T. Mitchell is concerned about the extent to which “culture,” with its claim to constitute “a homogeneous field or grid of relationships governed by a single principle,” is “taking on renewed force as the master-concept for the humanities and social sciences.” For Geertz, the “Tylorean kind of pot-au-feu theorizing about culture,” though it was “a seminal idea,” has lost “the grandiose, all-promising scope, the infinite versatility of apparent application, it once had” and now leads to a “conceptual morass.” The “whole discipline of anthropology,” he adds, “has been increasingly concerned to limit, specify, focus, and contain” the term (“Thick Description,” p. 4). According to Stephen Greenblatt, whose piece on “Culture” takes Tylor’s definition in full as its starting point, “the term as Tylor uses it is almost impossibly vague and encompassing” and thus inadequate to serve as “the backbone of an innovative critical practice” (p. 225). As William B. Warner and Clifford Siskin put it, “The strategic vagueness of the term and concept ‘culture,’ which was so important to the inclusiveness, emancipatory promise, and growth of cultural studies, can no longer take literary studies where it needs to go” (p. 95). This apprehension, that the expanded subject matter of cultural studies actually diminishes its explanatory power, is given a presciently systematic expression by Fredric Jameson in a 1984 piece on “Periodizing the 60s.” For Jameson, the ubiquity of “culture” may be traced back to an earlier master-concept—“theory.” From the pan-textualist position of theory, with all knowledge immersed in a sea of signs, the claim of any “particular traditional discipline” to “express something
RETURN OF THE AESTHETIC? 27 other than itself,namely truth or meaning,"is "contemptuously char- acterized as the illusion of reference,"the "mere addition of another text to what is now conceived as an infinite chain of texts...drawn from the most wildly distant disciplines."Jameson's primary exhibit for the collapse of disciplinary prestige is philosophy,though he adds in a laconic parenthesis that the"analogy with the evolution of literary and cultural studies"-that is,the evolution of a specifically literary into an all-inclusive cultural studies-is "obvious"(pp.193-4).When culture replaces language as the substance within which all being is constituted,it experiences a“prodigious expansion'”and“becomes coterminous with social life in general;now all the levels become 'acculturated,'and in the society of the spectacle,the image,or the simulacrum,everything has at length become cultural,from the super- structures down into the mechanisms of the infrastructure itself."In this situation,"artifacts have become the random experiences of daily life itself,"and "further discussion of what used to be called 'culture' proper"(or,it would seem,of anything else in its distinct specificity) has become"problematic"-if not,indeed,impossible (p.201). As these reflections trickled down into the professional conversation, we have been led back toward those "particular traditional disciplines" whose truth-or meaning-claims now seem less worthy of"contemptu- ous"dismissal.In the case of literary study,this has entailed a renewed interest in an aesthetic engagement with texts.In 1993 it seemed to John Guillory that"the thorough dismissal of the aesthetic as an'ideol- ogy'has...become a ubiquitous gesture on the contemporary critical scene"(Cultural Capital,p.271),but this situation was beginning to change even as Guillory described it.In the following year,George Levine,concerned with the tendency in recent work to the "assimila- tion of literature to ideology"(p.1)and of"critical practice to exercises in political positioning"(p.2),introduced a collection on Aesthetics and Ideology with a piece designed to "reclaim the aesthetic"-that is, to“imagine the aesthetic'”as“a mode that operates differently from others and contributes in distinctive ways to the possibilities of human fulfillment and connection"(p.3).By December 1998,Levine had his wish,at least to judge from the headline on the front page of the Chronice of Higher Education."Beauty is Back,"it declared,hooking readers to a piece with the lead,"Wearying of Cultural Studies,Some Scholars Rediscover Beauty"(Heller,A15).Another Chronicle piece the next July began with an inversion of Guillory."Bashing cultural stud- ies has become a popular academic pastime,"Rita Felski declares,a result of the "upsurge of interest in aesthetics"that portrays cultural
Return of the Aesthetic? 27 other than itself, namely truth or meaning,” is “contemptuously characterized as the illusion of reference,” the “mere addition of another text to what is now conceived as an infinite chain of texts...drawn from the most wildly distant disciplines.” Jameson’s primary exhibit for the collapse of disciplinary prestige is philosophy, though he adds in a laconic parenthesis that the “analogy with the evolution of literary and cultural studies”—that is, the evolution of a specifically literary into an all-inclusive cultural studies—is “obvious” (pp. 193–4). When culture replaces language as the substance within which all being is constituted, it experiences a “prodigious expansion” and “becomes coterminous with social life in general; now all the levels become ‘acculturated,’ and in the society of the spectacle, the image, or the simulacrum, everything has at length become cultural, from the superstructures down into the mechanisms of the infrastructure itself.” In this situation, “artifacts have become the random experiences of daily life itself,” and “further discussion of what used to be called ‘culture’ proper” (or, it would seem, of anything else in its distinct specificity) has become “problematic”—if not, indeed, impossible (p. 201). As these reflections trickled down into the professional conversation, we have been led back toward those “particular traditional disciplines” whose truth- or meaning-claims now seem less worthy of “contemptuous” dismissal. In the case of literary study, this has entailed a renewed interest in an aesthetic engagement with texts. In 1993 it seemed to John Guillory that “the thorough dismissal of the aesthetic as an ‘ideology’ has . . . become a ubiquitous gesture on the contemporary critical scene” (Cultural Capital, p. 271), but this situation was beginning to change even as Guillory described it. In the following year, George Levine, concerned with the tendency in recent work to the “assimilation of literature to ideology” (p. 1) and of “critical practice to exercises in political positioning” (p. 2), introduced a collection on Aesthetics and Ideology with a piece designed to “reclaim the aesthetic”—that is, to “imagine the aesthetic” as “a mode that operates differently from others and contributes in distinctive ways to the possibilities of human fulfillment and connection” (p. 3). By December 1998, Levine had his wish, at least to judge from the headline on the front page of the Chronicle of Higher Education. “Beauty is Back,” it declared, hooking readers to a piece with the lead, “Wearying of Cultural Studies, Some Scholars Rediscover Beauty” (Heller, A15). Another Chronicle piece the next July began with an inversion of Guillory. “Bashing cultural studies has become a popular academic pastime,” Rita Felski declares, a result of the “upsurge of interest in aesthetics” that portrays cultural
28 Shakespeare Studies Today studies as hostile(B6).Unfairly so,she claims,because cultural studies "has always been concerned with language and form...as much about the aesthetic dimension of the social world as it is about the social dimension of a work of art"(B7).That same year,the idea of a return to aesthetics was represented as a"hopeful sign"in Andrew Delbanco's otherwise gloomy New York Review piece on "The Decline and Fall of Literature":"One hears of'defending the literary,and of the return of beauty as a legitimate subject for analysis and appreciation"(38). Felski's accommodating tone resonates with the bridge-building pro- gram that prompted the editors of PMLA,two years earlier,to invite comments on the actual or potential relations between cultural studies and the literary"-an invitation so compelling that thirty-two readers took the trouble to respond(Forum 257).According to the journal's program issues,MLA conferences around this time include member- generated sessions representing the same set of concerns:"Formalism," “Toward a New Formalism in Renaissance Studies,”“Does Cultural Studies Have Bad Taste?";and a three-part program arranged by the Division on Middle English Language and Literature devoted to "Historicism and Literary Values."Michael Clark's reference to the "contrarian quality"of aesthetic interest sounds like a toned-down ver- sion of Guillory's"thorough dismissal of the aesthetic,"but by the time Clark made it,seven years after Guillory's pronouncement,a felt need to find room for the old aesthetics within the newly dominant mode of cultural studies is a vitally motivating factor,if not"a ubiquitous gesture on the contemporary critical scene." Within Shakespeare studies,one of the earliest acknowledgments of this felt need may be found in Patricia Parker's Literary Fat Ladies (1987).Parker worries about an overcompensating "reaction"among Shakespeareans to the "decades of formalism"dominating previous work:"to focus exclusively on questions of social and political con- text,”she cautions, to foreground the "political Shakespeare"without also taking seriously the linguistic one,is,for all its recontextualizing value, not just to work to the detriment of the kind of formal analysis that still so much needs to be done but unnecessarily to short- circuit or foreclose the process of moving from literary text to social text.(p.94) Parker concludes her argument with the suggestion"that the impasse of a now apparently outworn formalism and a new competing emphasis
28 Shakespeare Studies Today studies as hostile (B6). Unfairly so, she claims, because cultural studies “has always been concerned with language and form . . . as much about the aesthetic dimension of the social world as it is about the social dimension of a work of art” (B7). That same year, the idea of a return to aesthetics was represented as a “hopeful sign” in Andrew Delbanco’s otherwise gloomy New York Review piece on “The Decline and Fall of Literature”: “One hears of ‘defending the literary,’ and of the return of beauty as a legitimate subject for analysis and appreciation” (38). Felski’s accommodating tone resonates with the bridge-building program that prompted the editors of PMLA, two years earlier, to invite “comments on the actual or potential relations between cultural studies and the literary”—an invitation so compelling that thirty-two readers took the trouble to respond (Forum 257). According to the journal’s program issues, MLA conferences around this time include membergenerated sessions representing the same set of concerns: “Formalism,” “Toward a New Formalism in Renaissance Studies,” “Does Cultural Studies Have Bad Taste?”; and a three-part program arranged by the Division on Middle English Language and Literature devoted to “Historicism and Literary Values.”1 Michael Clark’s reference to the “contrarian quality” of aesthetic interest sounds like a toned-down version of Guillory’s “thorough dismissal of the aesthetic,” but by the time Clark made it, seven years after Guillory’s pronouncement, a felt need to find room for the old aesthetics within the newly dominant mode of cultural studies is a vitally motivating factor, if not “a ubiquitous gesture on the contemporary critical scene.” Within Shakespeare studies, one of the earliest acknowledgments of this felt need may be found in Patricia Parker’s Literary Fat Ladies (1987). Parker worries about an overcompensating “reaction” among Shakespeareans to the “decades of formalism” dominating previous work: “to focus exclusively on questions of social and political context,” she cautions, to foreground the “political Shakespeare” without also taking seriously the linguistic one, is, for all its recontextualizing value, not just to work to the detriment of the kind of formal analysis that still so much needs to be done but unnecessarily to shortcircuit or foreclose the process of moving from literary text to social text. (p. 94) Parker concludes her argument with the suggestion “that the impasse of a now apparently outworn formalism and a new competing emphasis
RETURN OF THE AESTHETIC? 29 on politics and history might be breached by questions which fall in between and hence remain unasked by both"(p.96). Parker features prominently in Russ's McDonald's Shakespeare Reread: The Texts in New Contexts,which develops more systematically both the idea of an impasse in current work and of a remedial negotiation between an earlier and a more recent critical practice.McDonald builds his analysis from the situation in the 1980s when a"New Historicism' or a 'cultural poetics'established the terms...in which context sup- planted text and history dominated poetry."Conceived as an alterna- tive to the "mechanical readings of an exhausted New Criticism,"this “new phase'”itself quickly became a routinized“formula”and“fos- tered its own excesses":the"capacious angle of vision"required by the "practice of reading culture"has "perforce diminished the details of the textual object,"resulting in"a virtual disappearance of the particu- lar and a devaluation of the 'artistic.'"In McDonald's conclusion,"We are in need of some means of reconciling the distant and recent pasts," an“attempt at a rapprochement'”(pp.2-3). The scrupulously evenhanded balance of McDonald's argument struck a responsive chord.In Shakespeare and Social Dialogue (1999),Lynne Magnusson starts with the claim that "as the new historicism or cultural poetics took hold in the 1980s,"it "drained much of the energy and interest out of language-oriented studies"and so produced an"impasse" (again)in "Renaissance and Shakespeare studies with regards to close verbal analysis."She urges Shakespeareans"to negotiate some common ground between close reading and cultural poetics"(pp.5,7).In the same year,Catherine Belsey builds her argument in Shakespeare and The Loss of Eden on a similar foundation:while she "unreservedly welcome[s]"the new cultural studies and does"not want to return to...New Criticism," she is"uneasy about the predominantly thematic character"and"decline of close reading"in current work.It is "imperative,"she concludes,"if we are to make good cultural history,to take account of the modes of address of the texts we analyse"(p.14).Three years later,Mark Rasmussen begins"New Formalisms?",the Introduction to his collec- tion on Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements,with the claim that the "movement toward cultural studies"in "virtually every area of literary study today"has tended"to interpret Renaissance works as bun- dles of historical or cultural content,without much attention to the ways that their meanings are shaped and enabled by the possibilities of form." Although he would“encourage a shift”toward“a fuller and more self- conscious engagement with questions of form"(p.1),he has no desire, he assures us,"to replace other critical approaches"(p.9)
Return of the Aesthetic? 29 on politics and history might be breached by questions which fall in between and hence remain unasked by both” (p. 96). Parker features prominently in Russ’s McDonald’s Shakespeare Reread: The Texts in New Contexts, which develops more systematically both the idea of an impasse in current work and of a remedial negotiation between an earlier and a more recent critical practice. McDonald builds his analysis from the situation in the 1980s when a “ ‘New Historicism’ or a ‘cultural poetics’ established the terms . . . in which context supplanted text and history dominated poetry.” Conceived as an alternative to the “mechanical readings of an exhausted New Criticism,” this “new phase” itself quickly became a routinized “formula” and “fostered its own excesses”: the “capacious angle of vision” required by the “practice of reading culture” has “perforce diminished the details of the textual object,” resulting in “a virtual disappearance of the particular and a devaluation of the ‘artistic.’ ” In McDonald’s conclusion, “We are in need of some means of reconciling the distant and recent pasts,” an “attempt at a rapprochement” (pp. 2–3). The scrupulously evenhanded balance of McDonald’s argument struck a responsive chord. In Shakespeare and Social Dialogue (1999), Lynne Magnusson starts with the claim that “as the new historicism or cultural poetics took hold in the 1980s,” it “drained much of the energy and interest out of language-oriented studies” and so produced an “impasse” (again) in “Renaissance and Shakespeare studies with regards to close verbal analysis.” She urges Shakespeareans “to negotiate some common ground between close reading and cultural poetics” (pp. 5, 7). In the same year, Catherine Belsey builds her argument in Shakespeare and The Loss of Eden on a similar foundation: while she “unreservedly welcome[s]” the new cultural studies and does “not want to return to . . . New Criticism,” she is “uneasy about the predominantly thematic character” and “decline of close reading” in current work. It is “imperative,” she concludes, “if we are to make good cultural history, to take account of the modes of address of the texts we analyse” (p. 14). Three years later, Mark Rasmussen begins “New Formalisms?”, the Introduction to his collection on Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements, with the claim that the “movement toward cultural studies” in “virtually every area of literary study today” has tended “to interpret Renaissance works as bundles of historical or cultural content, without much attention to the ways that their meanings are shaped and enabled by the possibilities of form.” Although he would “encourage a shift” toward “a fuller and more selfconscious engagement with questions of form” (p. 1), he has no desire, he assures us, “to replace other critical approaches” (p. 9)
30 Shakespeare Studies Today These arguments are not identical to one another,but their extraor- dinary convergence seems to add up to a shared project for reme- diating the malaise felt to exist in Shakespeare studies.In 2007 this project-call it the reconciliation agenda-acquires a kind of gen- eral status in "What Is New Formalism?",Marjorie Levinson's PMLA piece mentioned earlier,2 reinforced by two specifically Shakespearean events:the Shakespeare Association of America conference devoted its unique plenary to "Historical Formalism in Shakespeare Studies"; and Stephen Cohen's Shakespeare and Historical Formalism offered the most systematic version so far of the argument for"reconciling distant and recent pasts."As Cohen sees it,where the "ahistorical formal- ism"of New Criticism led in "the 1960s to its own repudiation by a cultural studies movement wary of any sort of literary exceptional- ism,”New Historicism,rising“to prominence in the early1980s” and determined to retain formalist interests within its own culturalist focus,seemed "poised to break this cycle"(p.1).But New Historicism never“engaged the complex question of form,”so the“promise of a historical formalism has gone largely unfulfilled."For a way out of "the resultant critical doldrums"(p.2),Cohen urges us to explore the "mutual implication"of"literature's formal individuation and its historical situation"(p.3),thereby to realize the values of"a true his- torical formalism"(p.21,note 7). These signs of intensified interest,however,are ambiguous as evi- dence for interpretive power.Conference Program Committee deci- sions are overdetermined by unknown contingencies,and it would be foolhardy to make much of a plenary title.Levinson's piece uncov- ers a vast body of material in "post-2000 scholarship that lays claim to a resurgent formalism"(558)and,in an expanded version available online,an even more vast body over a longer period of time;but she acknowledges that the critics she cites are frequently at odds with one another and reluctant to view their work as part of any general trend. Although her piece appeared under the rubric of"New Theories and Methodologies,”she concludes that the“new formalism”is“better described as a movement than a theory or method"(558).Cohen's Introduction testifies to the sustained appeal of the reconciliation pro- gram but also,in its felt need to go over the ground Parker and the others had already marked out,to the sustained failure of the program to have taken us anywhere.Remarkable as it is in itself,this consen- sus around the desirability of harmonizing textualist and contextual interests is even more remarkable for having apparently produced no decisive consequences
30 Shakespeare Studies Today These arguments are not identical to one another, but their extraordinary convergence seems to add up to a shared project for remediating the malaise felt to exist in Shakespeare studies. In 2007 this project—call it the reconciliation agenda—acquires a kind of general status in “What Is New Formalism?”, Marjorie Levinson’s PMLA piece mentioned earlier, 2 reinforced by two specifically Shakespearean events: the Shakespeare Association of America conference devoted its unique plenary to “Historical Formalism in Shakespeare Studies”; and Stephen Cohen’s Shakespeare and Historical Formalism offered the most systematic version so far of the argument for “reconciling distant and recent pasts.” As Cohen sees it, where the “ahistorical formalism” of New Criticism led in “the 1960s to its own repudiation by a cultural studies movement wary of any sort of literary exceptionalism,” New Historicism, rising “to prominence in the early 1980s” and determined to retain formalist interests within its own culturalist focus, seemed “poised to break this cycle” (p. 1). But New Historicism never “engaged the complex question of form,” so the “promise of a historical formalism has gone largely unfulfilled.” For a way out of “the resultant critical doldrums” (p. 2), Cohen urges us to explore the “mutual implication” of “literature’s formal individuation and its historical situation” (p. 3), thereby to realize the values of “a true historical formalism” (p. 21, note 7). These signs of intensified interest, however, are ambiguous as evidence for interpretive power. Conference Program Committee decisions are overdetermined by unknown contingencies, and it would be foolhardy to make much of a plenary title. Levinson’s piece uncovers a vast body of material in “post-2000 scholarship that lays claim to a resurgent formalism” (558) and, in an expanded version available online, an even more vast body over a longer period of time; but she acknowledges that the critics she cites are frequently at odds with one another and reluctant to view their work as part of any general trend. Although her piece appeared under the rubric of “New Theories and Methodologies,” she concludes that the “new formalism” is “better described as a movement than a theory or method” (558). Cohen’s Introduction testifies to the sustained appeal of the reconciliation program but also, in its felt need to go over the ground Parker and the others had already marked out, to the sustained failure of the program to have taken us anywhere. Remarkable as it is in itself, this consensus around the desirability of harmonizing textualist and contextual interests is even more remarkable for having apparently produced no decisive consequences