New Historicism

New Historicism is a literary theory based on the idea that literature should be studied
and intrepreted within the context of both the history of the author and the history of the
critic. Based on the literary criticism of Stephen Greenblatt and influenced by the
philosophy of Michel Foucault, New Historicism acknowledges not only that a work of
literature is influenced by its author's times and circumstances, but that the critic's
response to that work is also influenced by his environment, beliefs, and prejudices.

A New Historicist looks at literature in a wider historical context, examining both how the
writer's times affected the work and how the work reflects the writer's times, in turn
recognizing that current cultural contexts color that critic's conclusions.

For example, when studying Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, one always comes to
the question of whether the play shows Shakespeare to be anti-Semitic. The New
Historicist recognizes that this isn't a simple yes-or-no answer that can be teased out by
studying the text. This work must be judged in the context in which it was written; in
turn, cultural history can be revealed by studying the work — especially, say New
Historicists, by studying the use and dispersion of power and the marginalization of
social classes within the work. Studying the history reveals more about the text;
studying the text reveals more about the history.

The New Historicist also acknowledges that his examination of literature is "tainted" by
his own culture and environment. The very fact that we ask whether Shakespeare was
anti-Semitic — a question that wouldn't have been considered important a century ago
— reveals how our study of Shakespeare is affected by our civilization.

New Historicism, then, underscores the impermanence of literary criticism. Current

literary criticism is affected by and reveals the beliefs of our times in the same way that
literature reflects and is reflected by its own historical contexts. New Historicism
acknowledges and embraces the idea that, as times change, so will our understanding
of great literature.

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or highercriticism, is a

branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the
world behind the text". ... That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the
events that the text describes.
Historicism is the idea of attributing meaningful significance to space and time, such
as historical period, geographical place, and local culture. ... The term "historicism"
(Historismus) was coined by German philosopher Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel. Over time it
has developed different and somewhat divergent meanings.

General Introduction to New Historicism

T HERE ARE A NUMBER of similarities between this school and Marxism,

especially a British group of critics making up a school usually referred to as Cultural
Materialism. Both New Historicists and Cultural Materialists are interested in
recovering lost histories and in exploring mechanisms of repression and subjugation.
The major difference is that New Historicists tend to concentrate on those at the top of
the social hierarchy (i.e. the church, the monarchy, the upper-classes) while Cultural
Materialists tend to concentrate on those at the bottom of the social hierarchy (the
lower-classes, women, and other marginalized peoples). Also, though each of the
schools practices different kinds of history, New Historicists tend to draw on the
disciplines of political science and anthropology given their interest in governments,
institutions, and culture, while Cultural Materialists tend to rely on economics and
sociology given their interest in class, economics, and commodification. New
Historicists are, like the Cultural Materialists, interested in questions of circulation,
negotiation, profit and exchange , i.e. how activities that purport to be above the
market (including literature) are in fact informed by the values of that market.
However, New Historicists take this position further by then claiming that all cultural
activities may be considered as equally important texts for historical analysis:
contemporary trials of hermaphrodites or the intricacies of map-making may inform a
Shakespeare play as much as, say, Shakespeare's literary precursors. New Historicism
is also more specifically concerned with questions of power and culture (especially
the messy commingling of the social and the cultural or of the supposedly
autonomous self and the cultural/ political institutions that in fact produce that self).

Part of the difficulty of introducing this school is that a number of different

approaches to history and culture often get lumped together under the category of
"new historicism." The sheer number of historical and cultural studies that have
appeared since the early 1990s, including the dominance of the still-larger umbrella
term, Cultural Studies, makes the cordoning off of a group of critics as "New
Historicists" difficult. The effort to do so is certainly not helped by the fact that some
of the most prominent New Historicists, like Stephen Greenblatt and Alan Liu, either
reject or critique the very term, "New Historicism." Nonetheless, this critical school
and those scholars commonly associated with the school have been hugely influential
on scholarship of the last decade, so it's important to come to grips with some of the
general trends and common practices of this critical approach. As in the other sections
of this Guide to Theory, I here also provide Modules on individual theorists in order
to give a somewhat more detailed introduction to a few influential figures. I have
chosen to offer one important precursor, Michel Foucault, as well as one exemplary
practitioner, Stephen Greenblatt (who applies the methods of the school to
Renaissance texts). The links on the left will lead you to specific ideas discussed by
these critics; however, you might like to begin with a quick overview:

PLAYERS
MICHEL FOUCAULT is quite possibly the most influential critic of the last
quarter-century. His interest in issues of power, epistemology, subjectivity, and
ideology have influenced critics not only in literary studies but also political science,
history, and anthropology. His willingness to analyze and discuss disparate disciplines
(medicine, criminal science, philosophy, the history of sexuality, government,
literature, etc.) as well as his questioning of the very principle of disciplinarity and
specialization have inspired a host of subsequent critics to explore interdisciplinary
connections between areas that had rarely been examined together. Foucault also had
the ability to pick up common terms and give them new meaning, thus changing the
way critics addressed such pervasive issues as "power," "discourse," "discipline,"
"subjectivity," "sexuality," and "government."

STEPHEN GREENBLATT's brilliant studies of the Renaissance have

established him as the major figure commonly associated with New Historicism.
Indeed, his influence meant that New Historicism first gained popularity among
Renaissance scholars, many of whom were directly inspired by Greenblatt's ideas and
anecdotal approach. This fascination with history and the minute details of culture
soon caught on among scholars working in other historical periods, leading to the
increasing popularity of culturally- and historically-minded studies. This general trend
is often referred to as Cultural Studies.
Introduction
Being two frequently used literary theories, deconstruction and new historicism have

been influential in the literary world since their emergence in the late twentieth century.
Although there seems to be similarity between the two theories in terms of their close reading of
a text in deconstruction and of a period in new historicism, there are great differences between
the two theories. It is fact that, the only similarity between these theories is their approach.
Deconstruction is a close reading of a text in order to interpret underlying meaning. New
historicism is a close reading of non-literary texts of a specific period to understand a literary
work. Apart from this resemblance, there is no other similarity between the two theories. In
order to understand the similarities and differences better, it is significant to remember these
two theories successively.
1. Deconstruction
In 1960s, poststructuralism emerged as a reaction against structuralism in France and
Jacques Derrida was one of the leading figures of this new movement. Some authors including
Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault took part in this new movement and
commenced to defend the views of poststructuralism. Poststructuralists, in those years‟ France,
started to defend the concept of „self‟ and underlined the paramount nature of the
different
perceptions of the same signifiers. Saussurean understanding of signification which consists of a
signifier and a signified combination left its place to a contingency of multiple meanings in
poststructuralist criticism.
Jacques Derrida‟s famous works Of Grammatology, Speech and Phenomena and Writing
and Difference have had a great impact on the intellectual world since their publication in 1967.
In these works, Derrida strictly criticized the Saussurean point of view as regards the meaning
and text. He not only rejected the structuralist point of view, but also founded a new way of
criticism so as to figure out the relation between the meaning and text called deconstruction. On
the grounds that Derrida‟s deconstruction method has a philosophical background, it is
pretty
difficult to grasp its gist. Therefore, it is crucial to know Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant,
Fredrich Nietzche, Martin Heiddegger, Ferdinand de Saussure, Sigmund Freud and Jacques
Lacan and their philosophical views in order to understand Derrida‟s deconstruction
theory.
According to Barry “Derrida sees in modern times a particular intellectual 'event' which
constitutes a radical break from past ways of thought, loosely associating this break with the
philosophy of Nietzsche and Heidegger and the psychoanalysis of Freud” (2002, p. 66).
In order to explain Derrida‟s deconstruction theory clearly, I will try to explain it in
detail. First of all, Derrida refuses Saussure‟s signification theory concerning meaning. As it is
well known, Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics defends the view that a language is a
system of signs. All the words in a language system are signifiers and the images emerging
regarding the meaning of those signifiers in our minds are the signifieds. According to Saussure,
this signification system of a language can be studied synchronically and there is no need to
study the system of a language diachronically.

TİDSAD
Türk & İslam Dünyası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi /The Journal of Turk & Islam World Social
Studies
Yıl: 4, Sayı: 13, Eylül 2017, s. 60-64

On Deconstruction and New Historicism

62
However, Derrida opposes this idea in his Writing and Difference. Referring to the verbs
„defer‟ and „differ‟ Derrida coins a new word „différance‟ so as to focus on the temporal
and
spatial differences in a language. He explains his views through this new word
„différance‟.
According to Derrida there are two axes of difference. The first one is spatial difference. A word
for instance can be understood differently in different cultures, countries or places. The second
one is the temporal difference. Because the level of knowledge of a human being changes as
long as time goes by, or owing to different factors, a word can be understood differently at
different ages, for instance Shakespeare‟s Hamlet. Prior to Sigmund Freud‟s invention of
Psychoanalysis theory in 1900, understanding the repressed feelings of Shakespeare‟s
Hamlet
was impossible without Freud‟s Oedipal interpretation.
Secondly, Derrida was influenced by Platonic and Kantian ontologies. As is known, both
philosophers have similar theories concerning the presence of knowledge. While Plato is
describing two worlds, the perceptible world and the world of ideal forms; Immanuel Kant
similarly depicts two different worlds of noumenal realm and phenomenal realm in his Critique
of Pure Reason. Kant‟s noumenal realm and Plato‟s world of ideals represent the spatial
difference from the phenomenal realm and the world of forms. Because both the noumenal
realm and the world of ideals are untouchable and unphysical realms, they demonstrate the
spatial difference with regard to substance and presence. Derrida believes that there are both
temporal and spatial differences regarding the meaning, knowledge and truth.
Thirdly, Derrida rejects the binary oppositions that were initially introduced by Aristotle in the
tenth book of Poetics. Aristotle was the first philosopher to introduce us to the Pythagorean
opposites (table 1.1). “Aristotle associated moral prestige with the left-hand column, because
the “good” things appear in that column” (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2016). Derrida
totally opposes to binary oppositions and he believes that there are no logical reasons behind the
binary oppositions. According to Derrida binary oppositions create „violent hierarchy‟. Instead,
he defends a decentered world. When he says “There is nothing outside the text” he
means,
there is no centre for the certain truth and there are different meanings perceived by different
readers at different places and at different times. By doing so, Derrida rejects all kinds of
hierarchies and binary oppositions of western metaphysical opinion. He deconstructs the
buildings of texts from the hierarchies, binary oppositions and logocentrism. This decentered
point of view of Derrida is profoundly associated with the philosophies of Nietzsche and
Heiddegger. Apart from Sigmund Freud, Nietzsche and Heidegger were presumably the most
important philosophers in influencing Derrida in his deconstruction theory. According to Barry,
for instance, “Derrida sees in modern times a particular intellectual „event‟ which constitutes a
radical break from past ways of thought, loosely associating this break with the philosophy of
Nietzsche and Heidegger and the psychoanalysis of Freud” (2002, p. 66). Nietzsche was among
the few philosophers questioning the accuracy of knowledge in the age of positivism. In his
1873 essay „On Truth and Lying in an Extra-moral Sense‟ he started to question the
assumptions about the certainty of knowledge (cited in Rivkin 2000, p. 262). According to
Rivkin, “When the Post-Structuralists declare that there is no “transcendental signified,”
they
are echoing Nietzsche‟s claim that there is teleology, no theological origin or goal to the world”
(2000, p. 266)

TİDSAD
Türk & İslam Dünyası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi /The Journal of Turk & Islam World Social
Studies
Yıl: 4, Sayı: 13, Eylül 2017, s. 60-64

Kenan Yerli

63
Table 1.1: Pythagorean opposites
Limited
Unlimited
Odd
Even
Unity
Plurality
Right
Left
Male
Female
At Rest
In Motion
Straight
Curved
Light
Darkness
Good
Evil
Square
Oblong
Source: Aristotle‟s table of the Pythagorean Opposites (Encyclopedia Britannica Online 2016)
Martin Heidegger as one of the important philosophers influencing Derrida‟s
deconstruction theory elaborated on the necessity of difference to any determination of identity
in his essay „Identity and Difference‟ (Rivkin, 2000, p. 271).
French psychiatrist Jacques Lacan, who applied Sigmund Freud‟s psychoanalysis to the
language system, found out the fact that the language system and subconscious of human beings
have got the same working principles. To put it another way, Lacan proved that the working
system of a language is similar to the working system of the subconscious. He claimed that
metaphors and metonyms demonstrate the subconscious of the human mind. Similar to Freudian
slip of tongue which suddenly reveals the repressed feelings or opinions of the speaker,
metaphors and metonyms have the same duty and are the symbols of the repressed feelings.
Therefore, when a text is read deeply in the light of psychoanalysis, it is possible to grasp the
underlying or hidden meaning of the text.
According to Derrida the text itself is enough to understand the full meaning of the text.
Most of the time there are hidden messages behind the written texts. In order to acquire the
subconscious of the text deconstructive critics employ psychoanalysis.
Different from Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Sassure‟s view as regards the signifier and
signified, Derrida claims that the signified existed before the signifier. Similar to binary
oppositions like black and white, up and down, good and bad, woman and man, when we read a
text we are faced with two different meanings. The first one is expressed meaning and the other
one is hidden meaning of the text.
2. What is New Historicism?
New historicism emerged in the early 1980s as a literary theory in North America.
Stephen Greenblatt, English Professor at Harvard University, was the leading figure of this new
movement. It was a kind of reaction against traditional approaches. New historicists do not
study the literary work autonomously. On the contrary, they build a bridge between literary and
eing two frequently used literary theories, deconstruction and new historicism have
been influential in the literary world since their emergence in the late twentieth century.
Although there seems to be similarity between the two theories in terms of their close reading of
a text in deconstruction and of a period in new historicism, there are great differences between
the two theories. It is fact that, the only similarity between these theories is their approach.
Deconstruction is a close reading of a text in order to interpret underlying meaning. New
historicism is a close reading of non-literary texts of a specific period to understand a literary
work. Apart from this resemblance, there is no other similarity between the two theories. In
order to understand the similarities and differences better, it is significant to remember these
two theories successively.
1. Deconstruction
In 1960s, poststructuralism emerged as a reaction against structuralism in France and
Jacques Derrida was one of the leading figures of this new movement. Some authors including
Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault took part in this new movement and
commenced to defend the views of poststructuralism. Poststructuralists, in those years‟ France,
started to defend the concept of „self‟ and underlined the paramount nature of the
different
perceptions of the same signifiers. Saussurean understanding of signification which consists of a
signifier and a signified combination left its place to a contingency of multiple meanings in
poststructuralist criticism.
Jacques Derrida‟s famous works Of Grammatology, Speech and Phenomena and Writing
and Difference have had a great impact on the intellectual world since their publication in 1967.
In these works, Derrida strictly criticized the Saussurean point of view as regards the meaning
and text. He not only rejected the structuralist point of view, but also founded a new way of
criticism so as to figure out the relation between the meaning and text called deconstruction. On
the grounds that Derrida‟s deconstruction method has a philosophical background, it is
pretty
difficult to grasp its gist. Therefore, it is crucial to know Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant,
Fredrich Nietzche, Martin Heiddegger, Ferdinand de Saussure, Sigmund Freud and Jacques
Lacan and their philosophical views in order to understand Derrida‟s deconstruction
theory.
According to Barry “Derrida sees in modern times a particular intellectual 'event' which
constitutes a radical break from past ways of thought, loosely associating this break with the
philosophy of Nietzsche and Heidegger and the psychoanalysis of Freud” (2002, p. 66).
In order to explain Derrida‟s deconstruction theory clearly, I will try to explain it in
detail. First of all, Derrida refuses Saussure‟s signification theory concerning meaning. As it is
well known, Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics defends the view that a language is a
system of signs. All the words in a language system are signifiers and the images emerging
regarding the meaning of those signifiers in our minds are the signifieds. According to Saussure,
this signification system of a language can be studied synchronically and there is no need to
study the system of a language diachronically.

TİDSAD
Türk & İslam Dünyası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi /The Journal of Turk & Islam World Social
Studies
Yıl: 4, Sayı: 13, Eylül 2017, s. 60-64

On Deconstruction and New Historicism

62
However, Derrida opposes this idea in his Writing and Difference. Referring to the verbs
„defer‟ and „differ‟ Derrida coins a new word „différance‟ so as to focus on the temporal
and
spatial differences in a language. He explains his views through this new word
„différance‟.
According to Derrida there are two axes of difference. The first one is spatial difference. A word
for instance can be understood differently in different cultures, countries or places. The second
one is the temporal difference. Because the level of knowledge of a human being changes as
long as time goes by, or owing to different factors, a word can be understood differently at
different ages, for instance Shakespeare‟s Hamlet. Prior to Sigmund Freud‟s invention of
Psychoanalysis theory in 1900, understanding the repressed feelings of Shakespeare‟s
Hamlet
was impossible without Freud‟s Oedipal interpretation.
Secondly, Derrida was influenced by Platonic and Kantian ontologies. As is known, both
philosophers have similar theories concerning the presence of knowledge. While Plato is
describing two worlds, the perceptible world and the world of ideal forms; Immanuel Kant
similarly depicts two different worlds of noumenal realm and phenomenal realm in his Critique
of Pure Reason. Kant‟s noumenal realm and Plato‟s world of ideals represent the spatial
difference from the phenomenal realm and the world of forms. Because both the noumenal
realm and the world of ideals are untouchable and unphysical realms, they demonstrate the
spatial difference with regard to substance and presence. Derrida believes that there are both
temporal and spatial differences regarding the meaning, knowledge and truth.
Thirdly, Derrida rejects the binary oppositions that were initially introduced by Aristotle in the
tenth book of Poetics. Aristotle was the first philosopher to introduce us to the Pythagorean
opposites (table 1.1). “Aristotle associated moral prestige with the left-hand column, because
the “good” things appear in that column” (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2016). Derrida
totally opposes to binary oppositions and he believes that there are no logical reasons behind the
binary oppositions. According to Derrida binary oppositions create „violent hierarchy‟. Instead,
he defends a decentered world. When he says “There is nothing outside the text” he
means,
there is no centre for the certain truth and there are different meanings perceived by different
readers at different places and at different times. By doing so, Derrida rejects all kinds of
hierarchies and binary oppositions of western metaphysical opinion. He deconstructs the
buildings of texts from the hierarchies, binary oppositions and logocentrism. This decentered
point of view of Derrida is profoundly associated with the philosophies of Nietzsche and
Heiddegger. Apart from Sigmund Freud, Nietzsche and Heidegger were presumably the most
important philosophers in influencing Derrida in his deconstruction theory. According to Barry,
for instance, “Derrida sees in modern times a particular intellectual „event‟ which constitutes a
radical break from past ways of thought, loosely associating this break with the philosophy of
Nietzsche and Heidegger and the psychoanalysis of Freud” (2002, p. 66). Nietzsche was among
the few philosophers questioning the accuracy of knowledge in the age of positivism. In his
1873 essay „On Truth and Lying in an Extra-moral Sense‟ he started to question the
assumptions about the certainty of knowledge (cited in Rivkin 2000, p. 262). According to
Rivkin, “When the Post-Structuralists declare that there is no “transcendental signified,”
they
are echoing Nietzsche‟s claim that there is teleology, no theological origin or goal to the world”
(2000, p. 266)

TİDSAD
Türk & İslam Dünyası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi /The Journal of Turk & Islam World Social
Studies
Yıl: 4, Sayı: 13, Eylül 2017, s. 60-64

Kenan Yerli

63
Table 1.1: Pythagorean opposites
Limited
Unlimited
Odd
Even
Unity
Plurality
Right
Left
Male
Female
At Rest
In Motion
Straight
Curved
Light
Darkness
Good
Evil
Square
Oblong
Source: Aristotle‟s table of the Pythagorean Opposites (Encyclopedia Britannica Online 2016)
Martin Heidegger as one of the important philosophers influencing Derrida‟s
deconstruction theory elaborated on the necessity of difference to any determination of identity
in his essay „Identity and Difference‟ (Rivkin, 2000, p. 271).
French psychiatrist Jacques Lacan, who applied Sigmund Freud‟s psychoanalysis to the
language system, found out the fact that the language system and subconscious of human beings
have got the same working principles. To put it another way, Lacan proved that the working
system of a language is similar to the working system of the subconscious. He claimed that
metaphors and metonyms demonstrate the subconscious of the human mind. Similar to Freudian
slip of tongue which suddenly reveals the repressed feelings or opinions of the speaker,
metaphors and metonyms have the same duty and are the symbols of the repressed feelings.
Therefore, when a text is read deeply in the light of psychoanalysis, it is possible to grasp the
underlying or hidden meaning of the text.
According to Derrida the text itself is enough to understand the full meaning of the text.
Most of the time there are hidden messages behind the written texts. In order to acquire the
subconscious of the text deconstructive critics employ psychoanalysis.
Different from Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Sassure‟s view as regards the signifier and
signified, Derrida claims that the signified existed before the signifier. Similar to binary
oppositions like black and white, up and down, good and bad, woman and man, when we read a
text we are faced with two different meanings. The first one is expressed meaning and the other
one is hidden meaning of the text.
2. What is New Historicism?
New historicism emerged in the early 1980s as a literary theory in North America.
Stephen Greenblatt, English Professor at Harvard University, was the leading figure of this new
movement. It was a kind of reaction against traditional approaches. New historicists do not
study the literary work autonomously. On the contrary, they build a bridge between literary and
non-literary texts and forms so as to evaluate the literary work as a product of specific politic,

cultural and social contexts (Leitch 2001, p. 27). In other words, new historicists‟ main aim is to
figure out the literary work within its own historical context. Therefore, a simultaneous study of
literary work and its historical context is essential in order to figure out the literary work.
According to Peter Barry it is crucial to read both literary and non-literary texts of the same
period in order to make a new historicist criticism (2002, p. 172). History books, chronicles,
newspapers, letters or any other historical records are extremely significant to understand the
age in which literary work was written. Because of this dependence of new historicist criticism
on the texts, both literary and non-literary, Peter Barry claims that new historicism is influenced
by Derrida‟s deconstruction theory which claims that there is nothing outside the text (2002, p.
175).
Conclusion
According to deconstruction theory it is only possible to understand the text by only
reading the text itself. New historicists employ any kind of printed historical material like legal
documents of courts, parliaments or churches, diaries, letters or newspapers in their analysis of a
literary work. By doing so, they try to show how the literary work was influenced by the
political, cultural, religious or social context. Deconstructionists, on the other hand, try to
understand the hidden meaning or inconsistencies in a literary work by utilizing only the literary
work itself.
Peter Barry defines new historicism as a theory which is “based on the parallel reading of
literary and non-literary texts, usually of the same historical period” (2002, p. 172) and
states
the idea that new historicism is influenced by Derrida‟s deconstruction theory as new
historicists also believe that there is nothing outside the text (Barry, 2002, p. 175). It is a fact
that we learn most of the historical events as regards our past through texts. Therefore, text is
crucially significant both in new historicism and in deconstruction. In this respect, new
historicists employ any kind of printed historical documents like legal documents of courts,
parliaments or churches, diaries, letters or newspapers in their analysis of a literary work. By
doing so, they try to show how the literary work was influenced by the political, cultural,
religious or social context. Consequently, being two widely used literary theories,
deconstruction and new historicism have one thing in common. Deconstruction is a close
reading of a text in order to interpret underlying meaning. New historicism is a close reading of
non-literary texts of a specific period to understand a literary work. Apart from this
resemblance, there is no other similarity between the two theories.
REFERENCES
Barry, P., (2002). Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory,
Manchester University Press, UK.
Table of opposites, (2015). Encyclopædia Britannica Online, viewed 23 November 2015,
<http://global.britannica.com/topic/table-of-opposites>
Rivkin, J. & Ryan M., (eds.) (2000). Literary Theory: an Anthology, Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford.
Leitch, V.B., (ed.) (2001). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, W. W. Norton &
Company Inc., New York.

New historicism has been a hugely influential approach to literature, especially in

studies of William Shakespeare’s works and literature of the Early Modern period. It
began in earnest in 1980 and quickly supplanted New Criticism as the new orthodoxy in
early modern studies. Despite many attacks from feminists, cultural materialists, and
traditional scholars, it dominated the study of early modern literature in the 1980s and
1990s. Arguably, since then, it has given way to a different, more materialist, form of
historicism that some call “new new historicism.” There have also been variants of “new
historicism” in other periods of the discipline, most notably the romantic period, but its
stronghold has always remained in the Renaissance. At its core, new historicism
insists—contra formalism—that literature must be understood in its historical context.
This is because it views literary texts as cultural products that are rooted in their time
and place, not works of individual genius that transcend them. New-historicist essays
are thus often marked by making seemingly unlikely linkages between various cultural
products and literary texts. Its “newness” is at once an echo of the New Criticism it
replaced and a recognition of an “old” historicism, often exemplified by E. M. W. Tillyard,
against which it defines itself. In its earliest iteration, new historicism was primarily a
method of power analysis strongly influenced by the anthropological studies of Clifford
Geertz, modes of torture and punishment described by Michel Foucault, and methods of
ideological control outlined by Louis Althusser. This can be seen most visibly in new-
historicist work of the early 1980s. These works came to view the Tudor and early
Stuart states as being almost insurmountable absolutist monarchies in which the scope
of individual agency or political subversion appeared remote. This version of new
historicism is frequently, and erroneously, taken to represent its entire enterprise.
Stephen Greenblatt argued that power often produces its own subversive elements in
order to contain it—and so what appears to be subversion is actually the final victory of
containment. This became known as the hard version of the containment thesis, and it
was attacked and critiqued by many commentators as leaving too-little room for the
possibility of real change or agency. This was the major departure point of the cultural
materialists, who sought a more dynamic model of culture that afforded greater
opportunities for dissidence. Later new-historicist studies sought to complicate the hard
version of the containment thesis to facilitate a more flexible, heterogeneous, and
dynamic view of culture.
Owing to its success, there has been no shortage of textbooks and anthology entries on
new historicism, but it has often had to share space with British cultural materialism, a
school that, though related, has an entirely distinct theoretical and methodological
genesis. The consequence of this dual treatment has resulted in a somewhat
caricatured view of both approaches along the axis of subversion and containment, with
new historicism representing the latter. While there is some truth to this shorthand
account, any sustained engagement with new-historicist studies will reveal its
limitations. Readers should be aware, therefore, that while accounts that contrast new
historicism with cultural materialism—for example, Dollimore 1990, Wilson 1992,
and Brannigan 1998—can be illuminating, they can also by the terms of that contrast
tend to oversimplify. Be aware also that because new historicism has been a
controversial development in the field, accounts are seldom entirely neutral. Mullaney
1996, for example, was written by a new historicist, while Parvini 2012 was written by an
author who has been strongly critical of the approach.