Subjective – Creative Reading

New Historical Criticism, rather than seeing and analyzing historical events from a linear, objective perspective, approaches the past from a sociological lens. In New Historical Criticism, historical texts are analyzed with a focus on socioeconomic and cultural contextualization. Lois Tyson writes in “Critical Theory Today” that new historicists believe “there is no such thing as a presentation of facts; there is only interpretation” (269). A traditional, linear understanding of history presents only one objective version of reality. However, New Historical Criticism would argue that there are many different realities; each person has their own subjective worldview or “selfhood” which is influenced both by their individual personhood and by the society or culture they develop in (269). History is subjective, and there are multiple sides to every story. The limitation to this subjectivity is that usually only one side of the story is shown. The history that Americans learn in elementary school is not necessarily inclusive of multiple perspectives. History is often presented in an objective manner, presenting one version of reality as the truth. This “truth” often serves an existing power structure (271). Whoever controls the dominant narrative in society has the power to decide what is seen as objective. For example, the Church, a long-standing power structure, has produced the narrative that homosexuality is a sexual ‘perversion’ (271). The reason for this belief’s continuing popularity is because of the prominence of the social construct of the Church and the power it holds in society. Michael Foucault has suggested that all definitions of ‘insanity,’ ‘crime,’ and sexual ‘perversion’ are social constructs by meanings of which ruling powers maintain their control. We accept these definitions as ‘natural’ only because they are so ingrained in our culture’ (271). One can see form this quote that New Historical Criticism is rooted in sociological concepts. Sociologists, as well as New Historical Critics, believe that “what is “right,” “natural,” and “normal” are matters of definition (271). What is “true”, therefore, is subjective. The idea of subjectivity naturally lends itself to the theory of social constructs. Social constructionism is a theory first written about in “The Social Construction of Reality” by Peter L. Bergeer and Thomas Luckman in 1966. Essentially, social constructionists believe that human beings create their conceptualization of the world socially. Because of this, things that we believe to be true or objective often depend upon others’ perception of the same things. Perceptions can change over time, and as a society changes, so do its constructions. Traditional historicism tends to believe that societies change in a progressive, linear way. However, because of social constructionism, New Historical Critics believe that the way societies change over time is more subjective: “History cannot be understood simply as a linear progression of events. At any given point in history, any given culture may be progressing in some areas and regressing in others” (269). Each different historical event may be viewed as progressive or regressive within certain communities because of the social constructions that they have come to view as “natural” or “normal”. New Historical and Cultural Criticism tends to question these ideas and view history in multiple different perspectives, attempting to apply subjectivity to social constructions. For my further reading, I reread “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien. O’Brien’s book contains many stories from soldiers fighting in the Vietnam War, a war much disputed by those not fighting it. This book revealed to me how soldiers struggle with the social construction of war, and the impact that this war has on their lives during and after the war. This book made it obvious to me how multiple perspectives are necessary in order to fully understand historical events and the breadth of human experience. O’Brien gives a chilling insight into the minds of soldiers in the midst of atrocities with the weight of the world’s expectations and their own actions on their shoulders. This book made me rethink my assumptions about the Vietnam War and about how history is presented from positions of power.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015

I find many aspects of New Criticism contradictory and un-objective, but what created the most conflict for me is the New Critic perspective on psychological, sociological, and philosophical parts of works. In Critical Theory Today, Lois Tyson describes this perspective: “…New Critics addressed these elements, but they did so for the purpose of examining how such elements operate to establish the texts’ theme… they aestheticized them” (142). To look at psychological, sociological, and philosophical parts of a work and disregard them or only look at them aesthetically seems disingenuous. True distance from those three areas is impossible for a human, who is made of subjectivity and bias, and more so for the specific group of humans – rich, white, educated, abled, cisgender, heterosexual men – who dominated this theory in its heyday.

T.S Eliot writes in “Tradition and the Individual Talent” that “the emotion of art is impersonal.” This ties into his commentary on the separation of the of the “personality” of the author, as he describes it, and the medium. This implies a vast distance between a poet and their writing. I understand him to mean that emotional distance is required to produce effective poetry, and I agree that some is useful. However, his description of the distance is too extreme. It is as if the poet is merely a robot that has no experiences, feelings, or thoughts that can – intentionally or unintentionally – influence the resulting poem. Or, those influences are irrelevant to the quality of the poem.

The New Critics reduce writing to the formal qualities, and Eliot furthers this notion of intratextual examination when he distances the author. Neither, however, are the problem inherit with this theory. Its claims of ‘single best interpretation’ and ‘objectivity’ create the issue. As I have touched above, there are alternatives to the rigidness of New Criticism, which can hold more weight based on the work.

Consider “On Being Brought from Africa to America” by Phillis Wheatley:

‘Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,

Taught my benighted soul to understand

That there’s a God, that there’s a Saviour too:

Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.

Some view our sable race with scornful eye,

“Their colour is a diabolic die.”

Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,

May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.

A New Critic would talk about the organic unity in certain aspects in this poem (“Pagan” balancing “Saviour,” the contrast of a physical land and a soul). But they would be missing what I find of the utmost relevance, because context is required. It was written by an enslaved African woman in the United States at the beginning of the 19^th century. Phillis Wheatley was published by white people for white people, and her master encouraged her to write. She could neither cut herself off completely, because she had things she needed to say, nor directly convey what she needed to tell them. New Critics may say, “Well, we can aestheticize some of that from within the poem.” And to that, I say, if we do, we miss the integral part of this poem. This poem does not exist simply to be art. It is a message. In an elegant and poetic form, but the purpose is to convey a specific message in a non-threatening yet impactful way that comes directly from her personal circumstances. It is openly as Phillis Wheatley can say to that her enslavement is wrong: “Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain / May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.”

This portrait comes from one of Phillis Wheatley’s poetry books.

Works Cited

Eliot, T. S. “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” Poetry Foundation. 13 Oct. 2009. www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69400/tradition-and-the-individual-talent. Accessed 6 Sept. 2019.

Moorhead, Scipio, Engraver. Phillis Wheatley, Negro servant to Mr. John Wheatley, of Boston. Retrieved from the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/item/2002712199/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2019.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3^rded., Routledge, 2015.

Wheatley, Phillis. “On Being Brought from Africa to America.” Poetry Foundation. www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45465/on-being-brought-from-africa-to-america. Accessed 6 Sept. 2019.