Levine (378)
Change in literary discipline: questions the "literary" if what we study is
ideology; whether departments of literature will survive (378)
Shift from interpretation to theory (378)
[i.e., fall into theory; we were doing theory already but
didn't know it]
Rejection of literary value (378)
Replace literary studies with cultural studies (378)
[so what is "literary"? - to involve value, distinction
("greatness"); aesthetics]
Contingency is our condition (379; cf. Smith)
[can we establish what is literary if we insist on contingency?
(historically specified criteria only)]
To rehabilitate the concept of the aesthetic (379)
[what is the aesthetic? Complex, moral, political, human
connection? - or is this what it isn't?]
From Raymond Williams, Keywords (1988):
It is clear from this history that aesthetic, with its specialized references to ART (q.v.), to visual appearance, and to a category of what is ‘fine’ or ‘beautiful’, is a key formation in a group of meanings which at once emphasized and isolated SUBJECTIVE (q.v.) senseactivity as the basis of art and beauty as distinct, for example, from social or cultural interpretations. It is an element in the divided modern consciousness of art and society: a reference beyond social use and social valuation which, like one special meaning of culture, is intended to express a human dimension which the dominant version of society appears to exclude. The emphasis is understandable but the isolation can be damaging, for there is something irresistibly displaced and marginal about the now common and limiting phrase ‘aesthetic considerations’, especially when contrasted with practical or UTILITARIAN (q.v.) considerations, which are elements of the same basic division.
To examine relation of aesthetic with ideological (380)
Not grounded in "gorgeously mindless personal moments" (cf. Vendler) (380)
[does this devalue the personal, smeared by association
with the mystical? What about feeling? - see next comment]
Affective experience associated with the right, Burke et al. (380)
[this swerve to the right forgets Eagleton's claim to the
progressiveness of affect; where does that leave feeling?]
Aesthetic as an aspect of human nature, as universal, good taste, conceals hierarchical
values, class (381)
[why is human nature a rightist conception?]
Appropriation of aesthetic by politics, as in Eagleton (381)
Defenders of literary value who appeal to human nature (381)
Persistance of canon, of classics, despite recent theory, not well explained
(382)
[let's try some explanations, then. Begin with feeling?
- self-referential, culturally inflected, potentially modifying . . .]
Said keeping open a utopian space at the university for literary study (383)
In resistance to immediacy of seeing everything "as politics" (383)
[as if politics preempted personal literary experience
other than as an illusion; cf. Thomas Mann, politics is everything that makes
for human dignity]
Aesthetic as area of disruption and alternative concepts, resistant to political
dominance (384)
Utopian space: to consider complexity of so-called simple ideas (384)
Indictment of literature (on historical grounds) (384)
[can literature be progressive?]
Study of literature in its own right should co-exist with extrinsic approaches
(385)
Aesthetic as area of almost free play short circuiting politics (385)
["The still sad music of humanity" etc. Does the aesthetic
of "Tintern" position us politically?]
Aesthetic allows for a sense of the other (empathy) (385-6)
["sense of the other": moving towards claim for community;
does the aesthetic confer any other benefits?]
Attridge on literature questioning (defamiliarizing) standard assumptions (386)
[cf. Coleridge on customary perception, Shklovsky on defamiliarizing,
etc.]
Literary writing that resists complicity with the state (387)
[grounds for challenging this assumption also: indeterminacy
of literary texts, their ambiguities, questions]
For example, narrative as confirming or questioning society's values (387)
The literary as creating civil society, sense of community, etc. (387)
[what else? Is this another stereotype? Cf. "Tintern"]
Literary as offering domain of free choice, damaged by "suspicion" criticism
(388)
[where is the damage? Consider readership outside the academy]
Literary talent creates sense of community, in contrast to Foucault's conception
of community as oppressive (388)
Aesthetic requires disengagement from the political, provides a breathing space
(389)
[so where to begin? E.g., return to the personal, affective?]
Mixed, political nature of discourse requires academic freedom (389n)
[awkward conception: "mixed" presupposes a standpoint for
this assessment, hence the stance outside politics that Levine appears to deny]
Comments of student group (Michael Francoeur, with Taryn, Ben, Krystle)
1. Some critics argue that literature is inherently political. Levine argues against this notion and that many critics choose to analyze literature through a particular lens (political, feminist, structuralist, etc.). As a result, Levine believes that a diminishing, or "demystification" occurs. Our problem is how does one go about analyzing literature for the sake of aesthetic without the influence of such a perspective? If aesthetic exists outside the societal super-structure, how is it studied in the literary institution? He seems hesitant to define what exactly is the 'aesthetic', so it's difficult to picture in my mind. Furthermore, how do you compare the aesthetic of one text to another? Without a societal context to base it on (culture, politics, subjects of interest, etc.), how can Levine contrast similarities and differences between texts? Are there universal qualities in the aesthetic that allow us to compare various pieces of literature?
2. Levine makes a point of reconciling the aesthetic and neo-new criticism. Some of us feel that he's simply doing this as not to be labelled reactionary (as mentioned in Bérubé). Others feel that, like Levine, the aesthetic and this new area of criticism can co-exist.
Bérubé (391)
Levine's complaint that most study is now extrinsic while formal aspects are
discounted (392)
Crucial question whether extrinsic (political) approach violates the nature
of literature (392)
Complaint: either literature "brackets" politics, or contemporary criticism
gives politics too much emphasis (393)
Can we establish literature as a subject? if not, does ideology and political
change follow? (393)
[can we not envisage doing both? Vs. "The point is not
to study society but to change it," Marx]
Reaching broad cultural conclusions is a common aim (394)
But is there a difference between reading historical vs. literary materials
(394)
To read literature as a warning against reading literature (394)
Whether the aesthetic can be autonomous; whether literature can be exempt, even
for a moment, from political concerns (395)
Aesthetic as realm of utopian space, of academic freedom (396)
Are political pluralism and aesthetic disinterestedness interdependent? (396)
Levine swerves into finding communal values in the aesthetic (397)
[so, following Bérubé, why would disinterestedness facilitate
a sense of community?]
Conclusions: for Institution
So what role might the aesthetic still perform? Can it signal disinterest?
If the aesthetic is grounded in feeling, is feeling necessarily another branch
of ideology, like an invisible institution?
What role is there for the university or academic freedom, if literature is
necessarily ideological?
If drawing cultural conclusions, as what point do we exceed or violate the literary
in doing so? [cf. Woodring exceeding, Levinson violating]
If ideology ("contingency") goes all the way to the bottom, where do we locate
the literary institution?
What grounds are left for academic freedom, and what role does it have in literary
studies?
Document prepared February 12th 2005