From New Criticism to Deconstruction: The Example of Charles Feidelson's Symbolism and
American Literature
Author(s): Barbara Foley
Source: American Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 44-64
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712838 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 15:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FROM NEW CRITICISM TO
DECONSTRUCTION: THE EXAMPLE OF
CHARLES FEIDELSON'S SYMBOLISM
AND AMERICAN LITERATURE
BARBARA FOLEY
NorthwesternUniversity
WHEN MOST OF US CONTEMPLATE THE CRITICAL PHENOMENON KNOWN AS
heritage.
Continental
wetendtoassociateitwitha distinctly
deconstruction,
than
andNietzscherather
as Heidegger
ofsuchmajorfigures
Itsinvocation
its
tradition;
to theAnglo-American
familiar
authorities
thephilosophical
linked
intheworkofJacquesDerridaandvarioustheorists
clearcentering
school;evenitsadoptionofa simultanewiththeFrenchpoststructuralist
discursive
style-allthesequalitiesendowthe
andmagisterial
ouslyplayful
air.Weroutinely
foreign
witha characteristically
enterprise
deconstructionist
in New Havenas evidencethata
construethepracticeofdeconstruction
alongtheeasternseaboard;we
Europeanbeachheadhas beenestablished
at Yale not as an
view the warmwelcomeextendedto deconstruction
methodolbetweenthiscritical
affinity
thatthereis a fundamental
indication
ogyand theNew CriticalapproachforwhichYale has been historically
as a signthatourYale colleaguesarereceptiveto
famous,butprincipally
themostadvanced-ifperhaps,we are inclinedto think,also themost
theorizing.
in literary
baffling-experiments
Europeanindeconstructionist
No doubtthereis muchthatis distinctly
de Man,and otherstheir
andI wouldnotwishtodenyHartman,
activity,
Continental
pedigree.Nonetheless,we shouldbe aware thatYale has
forerunner
of deconstruction-namely,
producedits own homegrown
Charles Feidelson,whose Symbolismand AmericanLiterature(1953)1 has
ofcriticsengagedin
bya number
as a majorinfluence
beenacknowledged
'Charles Feidelson, Symbolismand AmericanLiterature(Chicago and London: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1953). All subsequent quotes will be cited in the text.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
45
about
readingsof Americanliterature.Whatis interesting
deconstructionist
the popularityof Symbolismand AmericanLiteratureamong contempohowever,is notsimplythatFeidelson'sbook shows
rarydeconstructionists,
alongthesame lines
an Americanscholarofthe 1950sto have been thinking
as Continentaltheoristsof subsequent decades. For Feidelson's study
applicationofNew Criticallinguisticand epistemoenactsa thoroughgoing
logical principlesto the examinationof literaryhistory-it exemplifies,
indeed, a remarkablyconsistentextension of New Critical methods of
textualanalysis to the delineationof an entireliterarytradition.The influence thatSymbolismand American Literaturehas exerted upon recent
approaches to Americanliteraturesuggests,then,that
deconstructionist
betweentheassumptionsundergirding
theremaybe a fundamentalaffinity
two critical methodologiesthat seem, on the surface, to have little in
suchas Jonathan
interpreters
ofdeconstruction
common.Whilesympathetic
Culler would have us believe that deconstructionrepresentsa radical
departure from critical approaches-including the New CriticismI propose
purportedlytied to the pursuitof meaningand interpretation,2
thattheoppositeis thecase: implicitin theNew Criticalstressupon formal
thatis simplyexautonomyis a valorizationof linguisticself-reflexivity
tendedto its logical limitsin the openlyantimimeticpoetics advocated by
school.
the decqnstructionist
has of
The continuitybetween New Criticismand poststructuralism
course been noted by other scholars.3A numberof importantissues are
betweenthetwo criticalschools, however,and these
raisedby thisaffinity
issues have not yetby any means been discussed exhaustively.Moreover,
ofthiskinshipforthestudyof
no one has notedtheparticularramifications
Americanliterature.In thisessay,I shallbrieflyreviewthecriticalstanding
ofSymbolismand AmericanLiterature,outlineitsargumentand delineate
and then explore some broader questions that
its points of vulnerability,
Feidelson's studysuggestsabout centraltendenciesin twentieth-century
literarytheory.
When Charles Feidelson's Symbolismand American Literaturefirst
criticsgreeteditas
yearsago, a numberofimportant
appearedalmostthirty
a majorworkin thecriticismofAmericanliterature.ShermanPaul, R. W.B .
2JonathanCuller, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature,Deconstruction(Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1981), esp. ch. 1, "Beyond Interpretation,"3-17.
3See, for example, Frank Lentricchia,Afterthe New Criticism(Chicago and London:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980); Gerald Graff,LiteratureAgainst Itself: Literary'Ideas in
Modern Society (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979); and Christopher Norris,
Deconstruction(London: Methuen, 1982).
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46
American Quarterly
of its
Lewis, KennethBurke,and EdwinFussell hailedthe originality
of itsliterary-historical
approachand thecomprehensiveness
theoretical
scope.4 Since its publication Symbolism and American Literature has
Paul's prophesythatit wouldprovea "seminal" work,forits
fulfilled
tothe
havetestified
theorists
has grownwiththeyears.Literary
following
Creation
Vivas,
in
Eliseo
of
symbolism.
discussion
ofFeidelson's
usefulness
and Discovery,praisedSymbolismand AmericanLiteratureforitsendorse-
and Brooksadopted
whileWimsatt
mentofa poeticsofnonreferentiality,
in theirLiterary
of symbolism
centraltenetsof Feidelson'sformulation
has also been feltby
A ShortHistory.Feidelson'sinfluence
Criticism:
theoriesofAmericanliterature.
to stakeoutdistinctive
criticsattempting
Symbolism and American Literature is frequently coupled with
text,andnumerMatthiessen's
AmericanRenaissanceas an authoritative
mid-nineteenththe
thesis
about
Feidelson's
treat
articles
ous scholarly
Joel
a
or
adversary.
respected
a
influence
as
either
major
writers
century
Porte's The Romance in America and WesleyAbramMorris's Towarda
forexample,bothacknowledgea majordebt to the
New Historicism,
providedby Feidelson.5
framework
and theoretical
historical
andAmerithatSymbolism
andinfluence
In spiteofall theapprobation
thebookhasalso been
hasenjoyedovertheyears,however,
canLiterature
scholars.Whenit first
attackedon variousgroundsby someformidable
forits
appeared,PerryMillerand Leon Howardattackedit,respectively,
andits"curiouslybarren"textualreadings.6
history
ofliterary
distortions
whileacknowlRichardHarterFogle,RichardChase,and C. C. Walcutt,
expressedseriousreservations
ofFeidelson'sstudy,
edgingtheimportance
Jones,
Overtheyears,HowardMumford
aboutitsmethodand findings.7
out
pointing
R. S. Crane,andPhilipRahvjoinedthechorusofdisapproval,
languageproduceda
ofsymbolistic
conception
s a prioristic
thatFeidelson'
4ShermanPaul, "Symbolism in the American Renaissance," Accent, 13 (1953), 189-92;
R. W. B. Lewis, "Literatureand Things," Hudson Review,7 (1954), 308-14; KennethBurke,
"The Dialectics of Imagery,"KenyonReview, 15 (1953), 625-32; Edwin Fussell, "The Mind
Athleticand the Spiriton the Stretch," Sewanee Review,61 (1953), 709-17.
5Eliseo Vivas, Creation and Discovery(New York: Noonday Press, 1955); WilliamKurtz
Wimsatt,Jr.,and Cleanth Brooks, LiteraryCriticism:A Short History(New York: Knopf,
1957); F 0. Matthiessen,AmericanRenaissance (1941; rpt.New York: OxfordUniv. Press,
1964); Joel Porte, The Romance in America (Middletown,Conn.: WesleyanUniv. Press,
Univ.Press,1972).
Princeton
(Princeton:
1969);WesleyAbramMorris,Towarda New Historicism
6PerryMiller,"The DoctrineoftheSymbol," VirginiaQuarterlyReview,29 (1953), 303-05;
Leon Howard, "Symbolism and American Literature:Hawthorne's Faust," NineteenthCenturyFiction, 8 (1954), 319-21. JosephFirebaugh,in theJournalof Aestheticsand Art
Criticism,12 (1954), 529, mountedan attack upon Feidelson's monism.
7RichardHarter Fogle, "Varieties of Critical Monism," Yale Review, 42 (1953), 604-06;
Richard Chase, American Literature,25 (1953), 378-80; Charles Child Walcutt,Arizona
Quarterly,9 (1953), 360-64.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
47
naiveliterary
history,
adopteda circularmodeof argumentation,
and,as
Rahvputit,had "quiteliterally
consumedtheinterest
in literature.8
Symbolismand American Literaturehas nonethelessrecentlyexperi-
enceda remarkable
resurgence
ofpopularity.
Whilestandard
studiesofthe
Americanliterary
tradition
have been repudiated
fortheirold-fashioned
endorsement
ofsuchconceptsas authorial
intention
andthematic
statement,
Symbolismand AmericanLiteraturehas recentlygrownin stature.Joseph
Riddel,perhapsthehighpriestofavant-garde
theories
ofAmerican
literature,
hascelebrated
Feidelson'
s bookforitsinsistence
that"American
literature,
initsEmersonian
origins,
hadalwaysbeenmodern,
inthesensethatithad
discoveredtheprimordial
economyof language,a self-reflexivity
which
thehistorical
poeticlanguageorcriticism
couldonlyidealizebylamenting
trialsof the word. .
.
. 'American' thoughtoriginatesin its own irony,"
Riddelargues,and "whatAmericanliterature
represents,
in theveryfigures of 'Man Thinking'or the 'centralman,' is criticalthought
itself."
he hailsFeidelson'sthesisabouttheself-reflexivity
Accordingly
ofAmerican literature
as a pioneeringachievement
in the historyof American
literary
criticism.9
KennethDauber,in thepages ofDiacritics,has paid
homageto Feidelsonas "the firstAmericancriticexplicitly
to formulate
something
likethepositionthatAmericanliterature
is a literature
whose
primary
concernhas alwaysbeen itsownnature.'10JohnIrwin'srecent
AmericanHieroglyphics
clearlylocatesitsdeconstructionist
approachto
theAmerican
literary
tradition
within
thesymbolistic
framework
developed
by Feidelson."1Irwin'ssubstitution
of "hieroglyphic
doubling"forthe
centralfigureof "Man Thinking";his emphasisupon the American
Renaissancewriters'
questfora (predifferentiated)
origin;
hisargument
that
a poeticsofindeterminacy-presumably
thesewriters
formulated
inspired
byChampollion's
decoding
oftheRosettaStone-allthesethesesrepresent
a
boldbutlogicallyconsistent
that
development
ofFeidelson'sproposition
8HowardMumfordJones,The Theorey
ofAmericanLiterature(Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniv.
Press, 1965), 198-205; Ronald S. Crane, The Idea of the Humanities (Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1967),II, 33-35; PhilipRahv, "Fiction and the Criticismof Fiction," Kenyon
Review, 18 (1956), 285.
9JosephRiddel, "Emerson and the 'American'Signature,"unpublishedessay, 5. See also
his "Decentering the Image: The 'Project' of 'American' Poetics?" in Josu6 Harari, ed.,
TextualStrategies (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1979), 322-58.
"'KennethDauber, "CriticismofAmericanLiterature,"Diacritics,7 (March 1977),56. See
also Dauber's discussionof "the GreatAmericannovelas readingand writing"in "American
Cultureas Genre," Criticism,22 (1980), 101-15.
'John Irwin, American Hieroglyphics: The Symbol of Egyptian Hieroglyphicsin the
AmericanaRenaissance (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1980). For a discussion of Irwin's
relationto Feidelson,see GaryLee Stonum,"Undoing AmericanLiteraryHistory,"Diacritics,
11 (Sept. 1981), 2-12; and Robert Con Davis's review in American Literature,52 (1981),
656-59.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48
American Quarterly
"American"and definitively
is at once distinctively
self-referentiality
as diverseas Chase, Lewis,
critics
"modern."Thus whilethe stockof
years-at
to
havefalleninrecent
seems
Kazin
and
Parrington,
Smith,
Fiedler,
themost
with
Studies
American
to
integrate
aspiring
scholars
among
least
would
Feidelson
of
in
fortunes
theory-the
directions literary
fashionable
of
prosperity.
level
a
new
seemto be approaching
It is timelyto explorethereasonswhyFeidelson'sstudyhas achieved
literature.
ofAmerican
theorists
statusamongcontemporary
near-canonical
can now
we
that
connection
methodological
it
be
the
may
Curiously,
and thatofthedeconstructionists
discernbetweenFeidelson'sargument
andAmeriSymbolism
besetting
thedeeperdifficulties
explicit
thatrenders
ofliterature
statements
aboutthenature
Forthosetheoretical
canLiterature.
inFeidelson's bookhaveemerged
apparatus
a cumbersome
thatconstituted
as canonicalprinciplesof a criticalapproachthatclaimsnotmerelyto
oflanguage,
ofreadingbutto reviseourconceptions
reshapetheactivity
and even reality.In otherwords,a lengthyepistemological
textuality,
aimedto
agendahas nowbeenattachedto a criticalmethodthatorginally
phase in Americanhistory.
thewriting
ofa particular
illuminate
Feidelson's centralargumentin Symbolismand AmericanLiteratureis
whichbeganwiththetalesof
literature
that"theunified
phaseofAmerican
was,although
andPoe andendedwithMelvilleandWhitman"
Hawthorne
"not recognizedas such by the men who made it," a "symbolist
thatthegermofthisideawasprovidedby
(1). Acknowledging
movement"
EdmundWilsonin Axel's Castle, Feidelsontakesissue withWilson's
RenaisoftheAmerican
ofthesewriters
affiliation
notionthattheprimary
as "romantic
egoism."
whichFeidelsondismisses
sancewastoromanticism,
with"Man Seeing"
Instead,Feidelsonargues,itwasa sharedpreoccupation
to
a "commit[ment]
artists
Renaissanceliterary
thatproducedinAmerican
F 0.
a commontheoryand practiceof perception"(5). Countering
denominator"
thesisthatthe"vitalcommon
Matthiessen'
s moresociological
giantswas a "devotiontothepossibiliamongthemid-nineteenth-century
Feidelsonstates,"thereallyvitalcommondenominatiesofdemocracy,"
toris preciselytheirattitudetowardtheirmedium. . . theirdistinctive
The symbolist
qualityis a devotionto the possibilitiesof symbolism."
independence."
methodis, forFeidelson,theseauthors'"titleto literary
tradition,"
oftheAmericanliterary
Because of "the relativeimmaturity
Hence,theirmainvalueis that"theylook
they"wroteno masterpieces."
in literary
history;
movements
forward
to one of themostsophisticated
(4).Symbolism
ofliterature"
theybroadenthepossibilities
inexpert,
however
andcritical
historical,
theoretical,
is an ambitious
andAmerican
Literature
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
49
study.It aspires to revise our conceptionof the distinctivefeaturesof the
AmericanRenaissance; it also providesclose readingsof severalcomplex
texts, formulatesa theory of symbolism,and argues that this theory
centuryas the
establishes five American writersof the mid-nineteenth
progenitorsof modernism.
At theheartof Feidelson's argumentis thecontentionthatsymbolismis
not a technique,buta mode of perception.Instead of beingan instrument
for"expressing" a realitythatexistsapartfromthespeaker,thelanguagein
a symbolisticwork,he holds,is thatreality:subjectand object are merged
in theact of perception."The linguisticmediumitself" (45) thusbecomes
the actual "subject" of symbolistliterature:
workas a pieceoflanguageis to regarditas a symbol,
To considertheliterary
ofits
bothfromthepersonality
in thesensethatit is quitedistinct
autonomous
inthesensethatitbrings
authorandfromanyworldofpureobjects,andcreative
intoexistenceitsownmeaning(49).
He arguesthatmodem theoristsof symbolism-fromLanger and Cassirer
to Blackmur,Tate, and Ransom-have worked to dispel the Cartesian
dualism that has dogged theories of perception since the seventeenth
century.Mergingthe old polaritiesof subject and object, idea and thing,
"the philosophyof symbolism. . . is an attemptto finda pointofdeparture
outsidethe premisesof dualism-not so muchan attemptto solve the old
'problemof knowledge'as an effortto redefinethe process of knowingin
such a mannerthatthe problemnever arises" (50).
For Feidelson, a naturalcorollaryof the autonomyof symbolisticlanwiththe language of poetry.
guage is its illogicalityand hence its affinity
"Logical language,"he claims,is "builtupon theprincipleofdiscreteness"
(57), wherebyeach elementhas a directcorrespondenceto some concrete,
externalobject. "In poetry," however,"we feel no compulsion to refer
outside language itself.A poem deliversa version of the world; it is the
worldforthe moment"(57). Similarly,"a metaphorinsistsupon including
as manyqualities as possible, thusintroducingelementsunassimilableby
logic" (62). Indeed, Feidelson sees the languageof logic as so fundamenin generalthathe oftentreatstheterms
tallyalien to thenatureofliterature
"metaphor," "poetry," and "literature"as synonymous:
is necessarily
Existing
antilogical.
Theexerciseofthealogicallanguageofpoetry
and recastslogical
supersedes,manipulates,
in the same medium,literature
structure.
...
ofa metaphor
havemeaning
onlybyvirtueofthethewholewhich
Theelements
a metaphor
partsthatdo notfullyexist
presents
theycreatebytheirinteraction;
untilthewholewhichtheythemselves
producecomesintoexistence.Literary
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50
American Quarterly
todescribeitmustendin
Anyattempt
is logicallycircular.
therefore,
structure,
paradox(58, 60-61;emphasisadded).
The readingsthatemergefromthistheoryof symbolismare predictable.
Feidelson analyzes The Scarlet Letter,forinstance,as a "kind of exposition of the natureof symbolicperception" (10). He calls "The Custom
House" a "portraitof the artistas symbolistin spite of himself' (9), and
observes that "the very focus of the book [is] . . . a writtensign" (13).
Similarly,the subject of "Lilacs" is "the poetic process," and that of
"Usher" is "aesthetic sensibility."Melville's earlysea adventuresfocuson
a "quest" ofthe "voyagingmind," in whichtheherois "less a man thana
capacity forperception" (165). Discussing the ever-increasingcircles of
significancethatsurroundthecentralsymbolsofMoby-Dick-the sea, the
doubloon,and thewhale itself-Feidelson concludesthattheactual subject
of thatnovel is the "meaningof meaning."Feidelson arguesthat"the best
clue to the methodand meaning" of Pierre is Gide's Faux-Monnayeurs,
since "as in Gide's novel, every character,includingthe author,is a
man's lifeis a construct;the artistis the archetypalman"
counterfeiter;
(186, 191). Naturallyenough,Feidelsonsees in Emersoniantranscendentalism an early theoreticalarticulationof the symbolistmanifesto:
ofsymbols"enablesmanto see both
WhenEmersonsaysthatthe"perception
relationof-mindand
of things"and "the primary
"the poeticconstruction
of
normally
creates"thewholeapparatus
andthatthissameperception
matter,"
witha
symbolism
poetrywithsymbolism,
poeticexpression,"he is identifying
ofa symbolic
withthevision,first,
andsymbolic
perception
modeofperception,
betweennature
relationship
intherealworldand,second,ofa symbolic
structure
and mind(120).
WhileFeidelson's textualanalyses illustratehis generalconcept of symof classic literaryworksbolismand challengetraditionalinterpretations
traditionalin 1953,thatis-they also shed lighton thenatureofhis literaryhistoricalinquiry.Convinced that these mid-centuryAmerican writers
of a "problematic"-a favoritetermof Feidelson's-and
wereforerunners
difficult
mode of perceptionthatcould reach fulldevelopmentonlyin the
century,Feidelson attributestheartisticflawshe discernsin their
twentieth
program.
workto theprimitiveness
oftheirattemptsto enactthesymbolistic
Thus, while saluting Hawthorne's achievement in The Scarlet Letter,
Feidelson findsHawthorne's otherfictioninferiorbecause its mode was
to a "safe" means ofexplorallegorical,ratherthansymbolistic,retreating
ing the relationshipbetween "thought" and "things" (15). Melville, too,
despite his triumphantmaintenanceof a state of paradox in Moby-Dick,
was, accordingto Feidelson, forthe mostpartconfusedand inconsistent.
Because Moby-Dick was presumablywrittenduringa briefinterimwhen
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
51
"Melville's artisticbankruptcywas postponedbyhis buoyantspirit"(175),
Feidelson gives it less attentionthan Pierre, an aborted instance of the
symbolisticmethod,but valuable forits anticipationof Gide's later constructionofan "infiniteregresswhichestablishescreativityas thesubject"
(189). Billy Budd, on the otherhand, was in Feidelson's eyes a cowardly
retreatfromthe ontological theme of the "voyaging mind" which had
absorbed Melville in his earlier work. Even Emerson, whom Feidelson
symbolist,
hailsas beingon thewholethemostsuccessfulnineteenth-century
he adjudgesfinallyunable to discernthemoresophisticatedimplicationsof
his own theory:
issuesthatled
bythephilosophic
theory
andpracticewerelimited
His literary
towardliterary
attitude
himto symbolism.... Whilehe urgedan experimental
form,the "spheral" structureof his own poems and essays remained
brandof
rudimentary....Thusour sense of alienationfromtheEmersonian
possibilifrom
thespecific
isjustified
totheextentthathewasremote
symbolism
ties of the literarysymbol(122).
Symbolismand American Literature,to summarize,is a remarkably
consistentbook; itstheoreticalfoundation,textualexegeses, and historicist
ways. What I wish to call into
outlook all workin mutuallyconfirmatory
question,however,is whetherthisis theconsistencyof creativesynthesis
or thatof tautology.
Feidelson's thesisabout thenatureofsymbolismis based upon thefamiliar New Criticaldistinctionbetween the language of logic (or prose) and
theotherself-contained.We maygrant
thatofpoetry:theone is referential,
thatpoetic languageenjoysa certaincompletenessofinternalrelationsthat
it qualitativelyfromthe referentiallanguage employed in
differentiates
much informationalor argumentative-or, for that matter,even much
fictional-prose. When Feidelson startsto treat"poetry" and "literature"
as equivalent terms,however,and to conflatethese with illogicality,he
encountersseriousproblems.For presumably"literature"comprisessuch
categoriesas prosefictionand theessay,whichformanycriticalpurposesit
is difficult
to equate withpoetry.Indeed, to treatthetermsas interchangeable is usefulonlyin thebroadestdiscussionsof literarytheory,wherethe
goal of theinquiryis to establishthe constituentfeaturesof some category
such as fictivediscourse or aestheticform,and where no singlemode of
discourse is privilegedto impose its specific generic identityupon the
definitionof "literature"as such.
Because Feidelson's theoryabout "literature"hingespreciselyupon the
oflyricpoetry,however,
reductionofall imaginativediscourseto thestrategy
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52
American Quarterly
he is simplyassumingin advance what he should be settingout to prove.
His adducingas "evidence" thepurportedlysymbolisticmode of perception discoverable in Melville's novels and Emerson's essays is a logical
sleightofhand: thenovelisticthemeofquestingor thephilosophicalpursuit
of a synthesisof subject and object is hardlyequivalentto a poetics that
functionsof literarydiscourse. What is more,
marginalizesthe referential
thefurther
conflationof "literature"withillogicalityis-to borrowone of
Feidelson's favoritewords-somewhat problematic.In what sense are the
or illogical?Does nottheir
cetologychaptersinMoby-Dicknonreferential,
effectiveness
derivepreciselyfromtheirinsistenceupon theveryobjectivityof the tangibleplenitudewithinwhichsubjectiveawareness inevitably
locates itself?While Feidelson has discerned somethingimportantabout
thephilosophicaland literarystrategyof AmericanRenaissance writerseven at their most discursive they clearly reject a naively logocentric
rationality
and seek to overcomethedualismofmatterand consciousnesshis definitionof the symbolisticmethodloses force when it is rendered
coterminouswith the definitionof "literature"as such. If Melville procirclesofmeaning,
duces in his whale a symbolthatimpliesever-expanding
he has not simplyinvoked the primordialambiguityof poetic language
itself.
Part of the difficulty
with Feidelson's approach thus derives fromthe
to exaltlyricpoetrytendencyprevalentamongNew Criticsprescriptively
definedin theirown peculiar terms-as the definitivegenre of literary
discourse.In Feidelson's case, theNew Criticalformulathat"All literature
is X"-with "X" equaling some such termas "paradox," ambiguity,"
"irony,"or "tension"-becomes "All literatureis illogicality."In fact,the
should be
assertionthat"All literatureis X" reallymeans, "All literature
X." Because Feidelsonhimselfclearlyhas a spiritualaffinity
forthesymbolistic mode, his favoriteliteraryworksare those thatsuccessfullyembodyit.
Allegoryis, accordingly,inherentlya less courageous or imaginativeor
complex approach thanis symbolism;while all romanticpoetryis tainted
by "romanticegoism." PerryMiller complained,
outon hischopcleaver,Mr.Feidelsonstretches
Armedwiththis[symbolistic]
Thoreauand
pingblockthe worksof Poe, Emerson,Hawthorne,Whitman,
therestintotherefuse
andthrows
tenderloin,
Melville,slicesoffthesymbolical
bythose
theretobe chewed,as so muchboneandgristle,
pailof"romanticism,"
historians.'2
whohavebecomethescavengers
ofcriticism,
theliterary
It would seem thatany worknotundertakenin the symbolisticmode is by
definitionan inferiorattempt-indeed, possibly not even a work of
12Miller,"The Doctrine of the Symbol,' 303-04.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
53
"literature"at all. If Feidelson comes down so hard upon the Romantic
poets fortheirinsistenceupon the creativepresence of an essentialpoetic
self,it is questionable whetherhe would even include underthe rubricof
discoursesuch a workas SisterCarrie,whichis shaped bythenaive
literary
assumptionthattheauthorialselfcan observe,replicate,andjudge a world
possessing distinctontological status beyond consciousness. Feidelson
failsto demonstratethatadherenceto thesymbolisticmode shouldbe itself
takenas a standardof value or a signof excellence, or thatthe absence of
or "nonliterarisymbolismshouldbe takenas proofof second-rateartistry
ness." Could there be such a thingas a literarywork that fulfillsthis
symbolisticprogramand yetfailsto achieve artisticinterest?Could therebe
to The Scarlet Letterother
any reason for The Marble Faun's inferiority
than the fact-if it is a fact-that the formeris writtenin the allegorical,
ratherthanthe symbolistic,mode? Is BillyBudd an artisticfailuresimply
because Melvilleherechose-if he did-to abandonthesymbolisticthemes
of voyagingand paradox and busy himselfwithotherstructuraland thematic materials?
Naturallyenough,thetextualreadingsthatFeidelsonoffersin supportof
Feidelson
his thesisabout symbolismreflectthese theoreticaldifficulties.
illuminatesthemasterpiecesoftheAmericlaimsthathistheoryprofoundly
can Renaissance, and thathis main goal, in the New Criticaltradition,is
whenSymbolismand
"not puretheorybutpracticalcriticism."Particularly
AmericanLiteraturefirstappeared-and we had notyetbeen informedthat
writersfromMiltonto Dickens had all been obsessed withtheproblematics of a languagewrestlingwithitsown inabilityto expressitsintentionsFeidelson's readingsprovidedan importantnew angleupon theclassics of
literature.Certainlythereis more thana trace of
mid-nineteenth-century
the modernistconcern with artistic self-consciousness discernable in
Hawthorne'selaborationof the multiplesignificancesof his letterA, or in
Poe's fascinationwithimaginationas a constitutivefeatureof reality.Yet
Feidelson has reduced his writers'enactmentof symbolisticperceptionto
the level of epistemologicalcliche. In what sense is this interestin the
process ofmimesistheessential"subject" treatedin thesewriters'works?
Why can it not be an ancillaryinterestor strategy?How do his readings
make room for other vital, if more traditional,considerations,such as
Hawthorne's preoccupation with moral choice, Whitman's democratic
optimism,or Melville's cosmic brooding?Surelyit cannotbe thecase that
symbolismcancels out the significanceof ethics,politics,and philosophy.
Had Feidelsonchosen to describetheparticularwayinwhichthesymbolisthenatureand extent
ticmethodfunctionsinindividualworks,determining
of its significancein the total effecteach authorstroveto create and the
ideas he wishedto explore,he could have retainedhis valid insightintothe
workingsof thesymbolisticimaginationand at the same timehave avoided
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54
American Quarterly
thetrapofreductionism.As R.W B. Lewis notedin an otherwiselaudatory
review,"the same mode of analysiswould produce comparablejudgments
about nearlyeverygreatworkof literature.... It would not be frivolous,
forexample, to describe the Odysseyas a poem about a greatpoet."13 In
Symbolismand American Literature,not only does all literatureend up
the same epistemologicalquandary: it even thematizesthat
confronting
problematic.By a curioustwist,then,Feidelsonundermineshis own claim
that symbolismlocates the essence of literaryactivityin process rather
"about" itsown referential
thanmeaning:ifliteratureis programmatically
incapacities,it is verymuch directedtowardthe elaboration-indeed, the
repetition-of cognitivepropositions.
dimensionofSymbolismand AmericanLiterature
The literary-historical
also suffersseverelyfromFeidelson's a prioristicapproachto thedefinition
of languageand literature.For one resultof Feidelson's implicitidentificationof "good literature"with"symbolism" is thatitleads himto adopt the
essentiallyahistoricalview thattheliterarytheoryofthepresentpossesses
a kind of absolute superiorityfor explainingand measuringthe literaofthemid-nineteenth
tureofthepast. Accordingto Feidelson,theliterature
centuryis to be valued forthedegreeto whichitanticipatesthethemesand
strategiesof modernismand fulfillsthecriteriaforsuccessfulNew Critical
fixingupon
exegesis. Feidelsonthusentirelybypasses conscious intention,
of a symbolisticprogramthatis
the presumablyunconscious fulfillment
projectedin his authors'work;theresultis, inevitably,a certaintwentiethcenturychauvinism.A furtherconsequence of Feidelson's preconceived
notion of literarylanguage is his odd preferencefor discussing failures
attemptsto enactthesymbolistic
ratherthansuccesses innineteenth-century
mode. Instead of treatingMoby-Dick as the keystone of Melville's
achievement,Feidelson passes over it as Melville's halfwayhouse on the
way to artisticdespair and devotes greaterattentionto the problem of
indeterminacyin Pierre. Feidelson's commentson Thoreau completely
the constantstruggleto
omitany mentionof Waldenand insteadhighlight
find"a 'point of interest'. . . mid-waybetweensubject and object" (141)
thatis evidenced in Thoreau's otherworks;accordingly,Feidelson places
emphasison whathe calls Thoreau's "ultimatepreferencefortheartoflife
overthelifeofart" (150). Even whenFeidelsondiscusses successfulworks
such as "Lilacs" and The Scarlet Letter,he makesit clear thattheauthors
hereattaineda clarityofsymbolisticvisionthattheymaynothave intended
and never managed to repeat. Thus, Feidelson's discovery of so few
symbolisticmasterpieceshas theeffectofendowingthisprivilegedpercepquality.Even theheroesofFeidelson's
tualmodewithan almostotherworldly
13Lewis,"Literatureand Things," 312.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
55
14 An
method,in Leon Howard's words, "shrink... under[his] scrutiny."
to acknowledgethe significanceof
ironicresultis thatwe findit difficult
Feidelson's thesis about the symbolisticnature of mid-centurywriters;
Feidelson's impositionby hindsightof a modernistcriticalbias has the
effectof trivializingtheverypointabout theformationof literarytradition
thathe seeks to affirm.
Feidelson's a prioristicapproach to the definitionof symbolismis not
ahistorical.For thelogisimplyinadequatelyhistorical,butfundamentally
cal implicationof Feidelson's argumentis thatthe symbolisticmode is an
inherentpropertyof literarylanguageworkingthroughindividualwriters,
almostas thewordofGod is said to have been receivedbytheprophetswho
were its scribes. Fromthe symbolisticpointof view,writerslose statusas
ofhistoricalcircumstances;
activesubjectsengagingspecificconfigurations
theybecome vehicles forincarnatinga supra-individual-andtranshistorical-linguistic essence. Language accordinglyusurps history,and social
considerationsemergeas peripheralto literaryproduction.Indeed, it becomes impossible to account for literarydevelopmentin termsof any
factors,sociological, economic, or political;
combinationof extraliterary
theveryattemptto introducesuch a conceptionof causalityis antithetical
totheessence ofthesymbolisticenterprise.Yetittherebybecomes difficult
forFeidelson to account forthe drama of radical epistemologicalrupture
thesis. If illogicalityis-one is
thatis centralto his own literary-historical
language,
featureofliterary
constitutive
temptedto say,alwaysalready-the
States
ofthe
United
the
of
whywas thistraitdiscoveredonlyin thecrucible
that
at
mid-century
society
in
American
1850s? Whatforceswere at work
encouragedonly a short-livedexperimentationin the symbolisticmode,
with realism and naturalismtakingover the stage until the mysterious
century?Feidelson's
reappearanceof symbolistmodernismin thetwentieth
insightintotheroleplayedby AmericanRenaissance writersin establishing
thestrategiesand themesofmodernismpossesses some validity,butalmost
in spite of the theoreticaland historicalargumentsthat he marshallsto
defendit.
If Symbolismand AmericanLiteratureis flawedin the ways thatI have
pointed out, why does it continue to exercise influence-indeed, to increase its influence-upon literarytheory?What I shall arguebrieflyhere
is thatthedifficulties
thatbeset Feidelson's argumentare notlogicalcontradictionspeculiarto thisone critic,butphilosophicalproblemsthatcharac-
14Howard,"Symbolism and AmericanLiterature,"319.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56
American Quarterly
terizea dominanttendencyin moderncriticism,as ithas extendedfromthe
New Critics down to the deconstructionistsof the present day. The
deficiencies of Symbolismand American Literature thereforecoincide
withshortcomingsin theoreticaloutlook thatconstitutea prevalentblind
spot in moderncriticalmethodology.I wish firstto note, however,thatit
wouldnotsurpriseme tohearthatFeidelsonhimselfhas been startled,even
dismayed, by the way his study of symbolismhas been invoked as a
propheticprecursorof deconstructionistpoetics. Where he designateda
writersas protomodernists,
particulargroupingof mid-nineteenth-century
claimthatthewhole national
certainrecenttheoristsofAmericanliterature
traditionis characterizedby a thematicsand a poetics of self-reflexivity;
wherehe envisionedsymbolismas a mode of bridgingthe epistemological
gap betweensubject and object, his descendantspropose thatsubject and
object are themselvesfictions,and thatthegoal of criticismis to revealthe
implicationof writerand readeralike in an infiniteregressof textsthatdo
notreflectand mediatehistoricalreality,butinsteadconstitutethatreality.
Beneath Feidelson's apparentlydaringformulationsabout language and
realitytherelurksan old-fashionedAmericanistwho lavishes lovingcare
upon the task of explicatingthe worldview containedin classic worksof
literature,and who mightwell be reluctantto assume his exalted status
amongtheapostles of deconstruction.Nonetheless,thehistoryof ideas is
and redefinition;
thehistorical
in largepartthehistoryof misappropriation
worldcontinuesto move along and carriesitstextswithit,and participants
in thatworldplunderthe past withoutconscience in orderto clarifyand
justifytheirown course in thepresent.I do notwishto adjudge Feidelson's
accountabilityin the deconstructionof Americanliterature,but simplyto
point out the logical connections between his study of symbolismand
subsequent studies thatwould have us view all Americanliteratureas an
explorationof theepistemologicalabime. The constructionofan ideological edifice transcends the personal intentionsof the individuals who
participate,consciously or unconsciously,in its formation.
One tendency (one might say, value) that the New Criticism and
deconstructionshare is the privilegingof the nonrational-in criticism,in
literature,
indeed,in life.In one sense, ofcourse,theNew Criticsattempted
to bringanalyticalrigorto the studyof literature:presumably,theirtreatmentofthetextas a discreteobject requiringitsown proceduresofinquiry
wouldenable themtoperformreadingseliminating
vaporishsubjectivityon
the one hand and sociological reductionismon the other.Yet, as Gerald
Graffhas pointed out, in theirwell-knowndistinctionbetween the languages of science and poetry,the New Criticsroutinelyassociated banal
withtheformerand richcomplexitywiththelatter,thereby
instrumentality
erectinga theoreticalframeworkthat-for all its apparent rejection of
Romanticism-held up spontaneityand imaginationin oppositionto logic
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
57
and reason.15 The designation of ambiguity,paradox, and irony-or
illogicality-as the definingmarks of literaturesuggested an implicit
and thefinest
metaphysics:realityis inaccessible to thetools ofrationality,
literaryendeavorsto construethenatureof thatrealitynecessarilyconvey
itsfundamental
ambiguity.AllenTatethusarguedthatpoetryis superiorto
logicbecause itmoreaccuratelycorrespondsto thetruetenorofexperience:
"in poetry,thedisparateelementsare not combinedas in logic, whichcan
join thingsonly . . . underthe law of contradiction;theyare combinedin
poetryratheras experience,and experiencehas decided to ignorelogic."
This convictionthatlifeitselfdefies the categoriesof rationalityis, Graff
argues,at theheartoftheNew Criticalfondnessfordiscoveringparadox in
principleand theme.Thereis buta short
literaryworks,as bothstructuring
New Criticismand deconstructo
traverse
between
philosophicaldistance
which
"in
manyrespectsold ambiguityand irony
tion,
is, as Graffputs it,
have done is to extendtherepudiawritlarge."Whatthedeconstructionists
tionof determinateor paraphrasablemeaningfrompoetryto discourse in
ofhistoricalreality.Since "reality"
general,and to codifytheindeterminacy
a text-the "geno(frequently
placed betweenquotationmarks)is ultimately
texte," as JuliaKristevacalls it-all thetextsthatwe constructin relation
to it, imaginativeand criticalalike, are "pheno-textes" thatcannot, and
should not, aspire to renderan "objective" world beyond the realm of
textuality.16
Indeed, in Kristeva's view, "realityis a conventionproduced
by language:"'17
between Feidelson's New Critical
There is thus a fundamentalaffinity
contentionthat the symbol "creates its own meaning" and Dauber's
claimthat"meaningis notembodiedin thewrittenbutis a
poststructuralist
functionof writing."Dauber, of course, gentlychides Feidelson for his
slightlynaive tendencyto "mystif[y]language," to "retainforthe word a
powerofgeneration,a powerofitsown to create,wherewe wouldtodaybe
more likely to see its creativityas an operation performedby it in a
particularlanguagegame.' 18 Deconstructionwouldalso takeissue withthe
immanentismof Feidelson's formulationof symbolism, arguing that
Feidelson exhibitswhat Derrida would call a "longingforpresence' a
nostalgiaforthe presumedorganicismof the pre-Cartesianpast-that is
antitheticalto the poststructuralistdelightin epistemological rupture.
However,bothNew Criticismand deconstructionfoundtheirconcernwith
upon an implicitconviction that (the best)
linguisticself-referentiality
I5Gerald Graff,LiteratureAgainst Itself, 129-49.
16ThequotationfromTate and the quotationfromGraffare fromibid., 136 and 145. Julia
Kristeva,La Revolutiondi Language Poetique (Paris: Seuil, 1974), 339.
17Quoted in Graff,LiteratureAgainst Itself, 171.
18Dauber,"Criticismof AmericanLiterature,"56.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58
American Quarterly
literature(and criticism)turnsto an examinationof its own discursive
procedurespreciselybecause these proceduresaddress the fundamental
epistemologicaldilemma confrontinghumanity.This view of texts and
therefore,"naturalizes" as an inherentqualityof literatureand
textuality,
languagean ideological stance thatis in facthistoricallyspecific,reflecting
fromsocial realitydistinctlycharacteristicof the modern
an estrangement
era. While the endorsement of a poetics of antireferentialityand
would seem to set the criticapartfromthe mass of hapless
nonrationality
readerswho, graspingat the slipperylife-lineof logocentrism,seek determinatemeaningand "presence," this poetics, as Frank Lentricchiahas
noted, actually
but
ofmodern
themainstream
conditions
society,
from
doesnotisolate[thecritic]
ofthem.American
andintensification
an academicelaboration
constitutes
rather
oftextual
tendstobe an activity
privatization,
literary
criticism
poststructuralist
froma sociallandscapeoffragmentation
to retreat
thecritic'sdoomedattempt
and alienation.'9
and
jointlyenshrinenonrationality
If New Criticismand deconstruction
and criticism,theydo so because theyconceive
in literature
self-reflexivity
of the historicalworld as lacking in inherentstructureor meaning:discourse is enrichedin its ontologicalsignificanceto theextentthatmaterial
"reality" (again, in quotationmarks)is seen as impoverished,or at least
inaccessible to analytical procedures that could render its essential
Wehereencountera second beliefthatrevealsan underlying
configuration.
continuityin these two strainsin moderncriticism-namely,an abiding
endorsement of the positivist epistemological assumptions that both
ferventlyseek to transcend.The New Critical designationof scientific
language as inferiorto poetic language suggeststhat the "facts" of the
materialworld are inertand fragmenteddata, possessing no capacity to
illuminatethe complexityof human experience. As Feidelson puts it-in
termsechoingthe dualisticsensibilityof Thomas Hobbes-there is a profoundepistemologicalabyss betweentherealmembodiedin the symbolistic imagination,thatof the "thinkingego," and the realmof "brutefact"
thatsuggestsa vitalconnectionbetweenthesubjective
(50)-a formulation
idealismofthepoeticshe advocatesand an essentiallymechanicalmaterialist
conception of the workaday world. As Georg Lukacs has argued, this
paradoxical relationis in fact characteristicof modernistpoetics: while
purportingto negate alienationby positingthe superiorsynthesisof art,
Afterthe New Criticism,186.
19Lentricchia,
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
59
it reinforcesthe apparent fragmentationand barrenness of historical
actuality.20
Deconstructioncollapses the New Critic'sdualisticdistinctionbetween
andpoetry:topostulatea realmofthe"aesthetic"
thelanguagesofnonfiction
apartfromthatof discourse in generalis to privilegethe workingsof the
mimeticimaginationand to denythetextuality-indeed,thefictionality-of
all cognitiveactivities.21Deconstructionthussets itselfup in oppositionto
both positivismand the neo-Kantianidealism of modernistaestheticians
such as Feidelson. Yetin itsconflationof all typesoflinguisticfunctioning,
deconstructiondeepens ratherthanreduces itsimplicationin bothpositivism and idealism: all discourseis a fictionpreciselybecause the "facts" of
experience are not anchored in, or reflectiveof, historicalprocessesobjectivelyexistingbeyond the bounds of consciousness-that the writer
can hope tocomprehend,withmoreorless accuracy.The deconstructionists,
of course, pose a critiqueof the metaphysicsof "presence" -and in so
doingevince an apparentradicalism-in theircontentionthattheobjectivist
claimto self-evidencesimplyprovidesa cover for(bourgeois)self-interest:
logocentrismis deployed as a strategyof ideological control,since truths
that are relativeor class-specificare proposed as absolute and eternal.
Derrida'snotionsofdecentering,freeplay,difference,and thestructurality
of structureexpose thebankruptcyof metaphysicalassumptionsabout the
thehegemonyofall systemsofideas
natureof "reality,"therebysubverting
thatmake a claim to "objective" (again in quotationmarks)truth.For all
the distance that deconstructionclaims to have put between itselfand
positivism,however,thereis a curiouskinshipbetweenDerrida'spolemical
'22 and Comte's proclamationof
contentionthat"II n'y a pas de hors-texte'
the impossibility"d'obtenir des notionsabsolues . . . a chercherl'origine
et la destination de 'univers et a connaitre les causes intimes des
is thatComte happilyadheres to
phenomenes.''23 The principaldifference
while
Derridarejectsempiricism
his limitedrealmof self-evident"facts,"
20GeorgLukacs, "The IdeologyofModernism,' in TheMeaningof Contemporary
Realism,
trans.Johnand Necke Mander (London: Merlin, 1963), 17 46.
2'Cf. Roland Barthes:
fromotherkindsis a paradox:the"fact"can
historical
discourse
Theonlyfeature
whichdistinguishes
of
as a termin a discourse,
yetwe behaveas ifitwerea simplereproduction
onlyexistlinguistically
discourse
"reality:'
Historical
altogether,
someextra-structural
something
onanother
planeofexistence
thatcaninfactneverbe reached.
is presumably
"outside"itself
theonlykindwhichaimsata referent
See his "Historical Discourse,' in Introductionto Structuralism,ed. Michael Lane (New
York: Basic Books, 1970), 153.
22Jacques Derrida, Of GrarnrnatologKtrans. Gayatri ChakravortySpivak (Baltimore:
JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 1976), 158.
23Quotedin D. G. Charlton,Positivist Thoughtin France During the Second Empire,
1852-1870(Oxford: Clarendon, 1959), 6.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60
American Quarterly
interplayofcompetas pseudo-objectivistand delightsin thecontradictory
idealist
metaphysics,the
against
polemicizing
For
all
its
ingshadow-truths.
deconstructionistargument,in its privilegingof language and textuality,
withinthediscoursesproduced
materiality
comesperiouslyclose toengulfing
by consciousness.24
The New Critics,as Lentricchianotes,clungfondlyto a viewofpoetryas
would cast offall mooringsto
knowledge,whereas the deconstructionists
cognitivedeterminacy.Both, however,contemplatethe abyss of the ontological problematicwithworshippingfascination;paradox and indeterminacy themselvesbecome therealmofultimatesignificance.Yetthisvalorization of thelinguisticactivitythatconfrontsand celebratestheambiguity
of the void has the effectnot of enrichingsubjectivityor ecriture,but of
of consciousness to theverybarrennessthatthe critic
reducingthe efforts
so studiouslyaspires to transcend.Whetherthe historicalworldis constithe productionsof writers
tutedby "brutefact" or textualindeterminacy,
and criticsalike are reduced to an explorationof existentialangst thatis
almost as poignant as it is monotonous. The stale uniformitythat
criticalreading-fromFeidelson's
accompanies the standardself-reflexive
discoveryof the "meaning of meaning" in Ahab's doubloon to J. Hillis
Miller's pursuitof epiphanic "linguisticmoments"in Shelley's verse25
derives fromthis underlyingconvictionthat the historicalworld is not
susceptibleto, or indeed worthyof,mimesis.For ifcriticscannotacknowlofwriting'26 a
edge whatRaymondWilliamshas called the "multiplicity
richnessgeneratedby thewidelyvaryingconditionsof mimesisin a changinghistoricalworld-how can theydiscoverin literarytextsanythingother
thanthe impoverishedrepetitionof an infiniteregress?To the extentthat
the criticenvisionsthe object of mimesisas lackingin dynamismor inner
coherence,then,the activityof mimesisitselfbecomes enslaved by a kind
of determinismof ironyor indeterminacy.Whetherthey claim to have
mergedsubject and object or to have abolished them,boththe New Critic
and the deconstructionistare entrapped between the abiding poles of
Cartesiandualism.
The rootcause oftheproblemsbesettingNew Criticismand deconstruction as theoriesof literatureand methodsof readingis, I propose, their
24Thelocus classicus ofthe argumentthatpositivism(mechanisticmaterialism)is logically
compatiblewith-and implies-idealism remainsLenin's Materialismand Empirio-Criticism.
to bothphilosophicalschools, Lenin proposedthata materialworlddoes
In contradistinction
indeed existbeyondconsciousness, but thatitis knowableto us onlythroughinteractionand
penetration;the key to the expansion and refinementof knowledge accordinglyis not
contemplation-positivistobservationor idealist abstraction-but practice.
25J. Hillis Miller,"The Criticas Host," in Deconstructionand Criticism,ed. Harold Bloom
et al. (New York: Seabury, 1979), 250.
26RaymondWilliams,Marxismand Literature(Oxford:OxfordUniv. Press, 1977), 145-50.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
61
common eliminationof historyfromthe lexicon of literarystudy.The
classical New Criticsare well knownfortheirminimizingof biographical
and sociological considerationsin the analysis of literature.When New
issuesCriticalmethodologyattemptsto grapple withhistoriographical
whetherin Eliot's discussionof "dissociated sensibility"or in Feidelson's
theoryof symbolism-the past becomes littlemore thana preludeto the
aesthetic and philosophical configurationof the present,which in turn
becomes suffusedwithnostalgia;indeed,presentand past arejoined along
a historicalcontinuumto the extent that they transcend change. The
enterprise,of course, claims to have reintroduceda genupoststructuralist
ine historicityinto the studyof literaturethroughits insistenceupon the
inevitablyideological and contemporarynatureof reading.Readers are,
communiaccordingto StanleyFish,inescapablyboundby theinterpretive
tiesto whichtheybelong,and a critic'sclaim to have approximatedtextual
meaning(or even to have commentedupon textualsignificance)is rendered
questionableby thesuccession of abandoned construalsofauthorialintentionthatlitterthepath of criticalhistory.As Riddel putsit, "A criticismof
originsreveals onlythefalse originsof criticism.:27 Beneath thisapparent
acknowledgementof the historicityof audience, however,therelurks a
endorseas mostvalid those
curiousmonism:fordo notdeconstructionists
readingsthatpointbeyondtheillusionof "meaning" itself,to thetimeless
struggleof textsas theyheroicallyfailin theirattemptsto wrestdeterminacy fromwhatRiddel calls the "primordialword"? Do notreadingssuch
as Irwin's examinationsof "narcissistic doubling" propose that literary
works are, in theirfullestdimension,ahistoricalentitiesthat enact the
abidingambiguityof the hieroglyph?As Stonumcomplains,Irwin's argumentfailsto defineeitherwhatis Americanor whatis historicalin American literaryhistory,since
repeated,continually
onlyone Quest,continually
therecan be inIrwin'stelling
thegroundsoflanguageand consciousness
subverting
balked,and continually
is thusso generalthatiteither
thatmaketheQuestpossible.Irwin'sproblematic
an idlepursuit.28
or renderssecularhistory
historical
particularity
transcends
It has been countered, we should note, that certain strains of
deconstruction-especiallythose most closely associated withDerridahave avoided the pitfalls accompanying the antihistorical brand of
deconstructionthatemanates fromYale. Jane P. Tompkins,forexample,
proposes that the linguistic self-awareness prompted by Derridean
27StanleyFish, Is Therea Textin This Class. (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1980);
Riddel, "Emerson and the 'American' Signature," 1.
28Stonum,"Undoing AmericanLiteraryHistory,' 10.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62
American Quarterly
view
historical:"the deconstructionist
deconstructionis in factprofoundly
does notdenytherelationshipofliteratureto realityand historybut makes
that relationshipinescapable by arguingfor a realitythat is continually
shaped and re-shapedby discourse.29 Rodolphe Gasche, Michael Ryan,
and even FrankLentricchiawould concur.30We shouldbe gratefulto these
criticsforremindingus that our understandingof historicaland cultural
phenomena is inevitably mediated by our ideological and linguistic
constructions,and that these constructionsare themselvesintrinsically
historical;but we should also note thatonce the historicalworldhas been
indeed to workback fromtext
itbecomes difficult
assimilatedto textuality,
to context.For historicalcausalityhas evaporated,at least in thesense that
itselfto change;
causingliterature
therecan be somethingoutsideliterature
that,liketheprotoplasmic
we are leftwitha boundlesstextuality
ultimately,
monstersof science fiction,absorbs into itselfall fields of force in the
historicalworld.
alike, both authorand reader
For the New Criticand deconstructionist
are eliminated,as active,individualizedhistoricalsubjects:theNew Critics
accomplished thisfeatby fetishizingthe autonomyof the text,while the
by collapsingthehistorical
carryout the extermination
deconstructionists
of
activitiesof textualproductionand receptionintothereifiedinstitutions
"writing"and "reading." People do not writetexts:languagewritesthem.
As Edward Said has complained,"In achievinga positionof masteryover
man,languagehas reducedhimto a grammaticalfunction.'3 1 To theextent
that historical considerations seek entryinto this imposing edifice of
outthebackdoor.Lentricchiaconcludes,
theyarehastilyushered
formalism,
criticis concernedto
theformalist
New-Critical
or poststructuralist,
Whether
hewields
qualitiesofthetext,andwhether
thehistory-transcending
demonstrate
as a typeof
thewriter
heportrays
orthatofirony,
thetextualcleaverofdifference
29JaneP. Tompkins,"GraffAgainstHimself," MLN, 96 (1981), 1094.
30RodolpheGasch6, "UnscramblingPositions: On Gerald Graff'sCritiqueof Deconstruction,' MLN, 96 (1981), 1015-34; Michael Ryan, Marxism and Deconstruction:A Critical
Articulation(Baltimoreand London: JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 1982). Lentricchiais difficult to pin down on an assessment of Derrida. On the one hand, he chargesthat"Derrida's
deconstructiveprojectis formalistthroughand through.Its synchronicdesirefor'thegreatest
totality,fordialogue witha unifiedtradition(logocentrism),defeatsits would-behistoricist
disposition." Yet Lentricchia also insists that Derrida's enterpriseis to be qualitatively
distinguishedfromthe "pleasure-orientedformalismof the Yale critics," and he reaches the
ambiguous conclusion that " [Derrida's ] formalismis at the same timeone of his greatest
strengths,for it is the basis of an elegant, commandingoverview matched in philosophic
historyonlyby Hegel." It is not clear how elegance compensatesforahistoricism.See After
the New,Criticism,177, 176, 177.
3"Quotedin ibid., 162.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
From New Criticismto Deconstruction
63
whosegreatand
Houdini,a greatescapeartistwhosedeepestthemeis freedom,
manacles.32
featis thedefeatofhistory's
repetitious
Rather ominously, however, one signals this freedom by immersing
oneself-or, moreaccurately,by acknowledgingthatone is always already
immersed-in an all-encompassinglinguistictotalitythataffordswriterand
criticalikea release fromthepressuresof choice in thehistoricalworld.33
In itsapplicationofNew Criticalprinciplesofreadingto theconstruction
of a theoryof literatureand the delineationof modernistliteraryhistory,
Symbolismand AmericanLiteraturethus carriesto theirlogical limitthe
philosophicalassumptionslatentin New Criticism;it thereforeserves as a
bridgebetween the epistemologicalprogramimplicitin traditionalNew
Criticismand the world view explicitlyendorsed by the contemporary
criticalavant-garde.WhatI am suggesting,of course, is thatthese schools
be viewedas limitedand
ofcriticismcan themselvesperhapsmostfruitfully
historicalphenomena,and notas theoriesor methodspossessing anything
explanatorypower to whichtheylay claim. Feidelson
likethefar-reaching
made an importantdiscoverywhen he noted that the American Renaissance giantsanticipatedthestrategiesof modernismin theirpreoccupation
withtheexpansivepossibilitiesoftheliterarysymbol.Whathe shouldalso
have realized is thathis own criticalventurerepresentsa logical extension
ofthatdevelopment,in thatit embedsin thedomainofcriticaltheorysome
of the same epistemologicalassumptions he discovers at work among
symbolistsand subsequent modernists.Because it
nineteenth-century
evinces no awareness of its own genetic relation to this philosophical
tradition,however,Feidelson's book is finallyless a literarystudythanit is
a work of ideology: that is, it proposes an analytical frameworkfor
comprehending a historically unified set of materials, but then it
dehistoricizesthatframework,convertingwhat is a temporarilyspecific
scheme into a presumablytimeless attributeof literatureitself. While
ofa particurootedin historicaland philosophicalimperativescharacteristic
lar moment,the ideological text,to borrowthe formulationof Marx and
and representthemas
Engels, "has to giveitsideas theformofuniversality,
the only rational,universallyvalid ones.:34
While thisunexaminedideological bias lies at the heartof the methodthat
ologicalflawsinFeidelson's book, itis, I believe,thisveryshortcoming
32Ibid., 185.
33Foran adept critiqueof deconstruction'sconservativeimplications,see Maria Ruegg,
in theAmericanContext,"
and Post-Structuralism
"The End(s) of FrenchStyle:Structuralism
Criticism,21 (1979), 189-216.
34KarlMarx and FrederickEngels, The German Ideology, ed. C. J. Arthur(New York:
InternationalPublishers,New WorldPaperbacks, 1970), 66.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64
American Quarterly
allows Symbolismand American Literatureto enjoy such high esteem
among deconstructionistcriticsof Americanliterature,who gladly subscribe to the canonical prescriptionsthat Feidelson offers.Where the
interestin linguisticself-reflexivity
serves primarilyas a tool for textual
explicationforFeidelson and otherNew Critics,however,it has become a
new metaphysicsin the hands of the deconstructionists.Nonrationality,
ahistoricism,and the abandonment of mimesis become privileged in
literature,as both subject matterand strategy,by a criticalmethodthat
proclaimsindeterminate
linguistictextualityto the homologouswith,and
coterminouswith,thetextuality
ofeverydaylife.Ifwe are to avoid theerror
of seeing in deconstructiona viable criticalprogram-or the even greater
politicallyradical
foolishnessofsupposing,as does Michael Ryan,anything
in a philosophicaloutlook thatenshrinesrelativismand decentering-we
mightdo well to remindourselves of its essentiallyideological character.
Both deconstructionand the New Criticalmethodwithwhichit is in part
formalisticand idealistschools of
geneticallyconnectedare fundamentally
thatwouldnegate-or at least drasticallymarginalize-thereferencriticism
tialpowerand historicalsignificanceofliterarydiscourse. Whileproposing
themselves,in theirdifferent
days, as qualitativenew directionsin literary
theory,theyhave notofferednew philosophicalsynthesesas muchas they
have reformulated,
updated, and in fact furtherinstitutionalizedthe old
problems of reifiedperceptionand alienation that have beset bourgeois
philosophysince the timeof Descartes. An examinationof the underpinningsoftheseschools maytellus a good deal about wherewe have been and
wherewe maybe goingin the developmentof moderncriticaltheory;but
we shouldview themas limitedin theirexplanatorypower,and certainlyas
literature,history,or the configuraless thanfullycapable of illuminating
tion of the contemporaryworld.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 9 May 2014 15:27:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions