Analyses and Interpretations of the Representations of Political Events of the Pre-war and the War Periods of Haileselassie

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

New Historicism

New Historicism is a literary critical approach and theory that emerged in America in the early 1980s with the intention of breaking the literary rules that make distinctions between literature and its contexts and between literary and non-literary texts, practices that were adhered by the approaches of new criticism, formalism and structuralism (Baldic, 2001: 171-172). New criticism, formalism and structuralism are characterized by their neglect of contexts – historical and cultural contexts in which works of literature are produced. The new historicists, irrespective of their differences, introduced the purpose of changing intrinsic reading and bringing the sociological aspect of literature to life in the literary academy. New Historicism attends primarily to the historical and cultural conditions of a text’s production, its meanings, effects, and its later critical interpretations and evaluations (Abrams, 1999: 182-190).
Some of the main proponents of New Historicism are Stephen Greenblatt, Louis Montrose, Catherine Gallagher, D. A. Miller, Joel Fineman and Walter Benn Michaels. Although there are different versions of New Historicism, these authorities “do share common practices and assumptions, particularly concerning methodological issues and the nature of power relations (Brannigan, 2001: 173).
New Historicism is not simply a return to the previous kind of literary scholarships. It should be made clear that the principles, methods and practices of the new historicists are very different from the historical criticism which considers realistic literature as a direct mirror of the realities of a period (Abrams, 1999: 182-183).
New Historicism is characterized by some major principles. For example, the new historisists believe that reality is constructed in the human mind. For new historicists, there is no absolute, universal, and transcendental truth; truth is specific for specific time and place. Truth also changes when the power relationship changes (Brannigan, 2001: 173). Literature is also understood in light of the context. The new historical critics take into consideration not only the context of the story or the event explained in the literary work, but also the context of the production, and the context of the consumption (Abrams, 1999: 183). They are concerned with the contexts of the author, the reader and the text (P. C. Kar, 1997: 71-72 as cited by Tiwary and Chandra, 2009: 86).
New historicists assert that in understanding a literary work, historical, political, biographical, and other forms of writing play important roles. Conversly, literary texts equally give useful knowledge and insight in understanding historical or political texts (Bertens, 2001: 180; Dogam, 2005: 80). New Historicism is characterized by intertextuality. The literary text is read and understood in relation to other literary and non literary texts and other documents of the same era (Holub, 1992: 174; Zekiye,
(n.d): 62).
The relationship between literature and context is multi directional. Literature can be simultaneously considered as a product of history, and in turn as a tool that has significance in the making of history. Literature represents history, but it is not a mere representation of history. It is rather actively involved in the shaping of history, and gives insights into the formation and interpretation of historical and political moments. Literature reveals the processes and tensions by which historical changes were brought about, and may motivate changes in history. It may, at the same time, reveal the social and political ideas of a particular time in history and also instigate the need for rupture or the need for change in that political system (Bertens, 2001: 166 – 167; Brannigan, 2001: 169 -170).
‘Textuality of history and historicity of texts’ is one of the leading slogans of the new historicists (Montrose, in Brannigan, 2001: 170). New historicists understand history as embedded in texts, and, at the same time, texts, in one way or another, represent history. They are interested neither in literature nor in history; they are rather interested in literature in history (Brannigan, 2001: 170). A new historicist “accepts Derrida’s view that there is nothing outside the text, the special sense that everything about the past is only available to us in textualized form: through the ideology, or outlook, or discursive practices of its own time, through those of ours, and through the distorting web of language itself” (Barry, 2002: (n.p.)). Our knowledge of the past is constructed from these practices.
For new historicists, the self is not autonomous, but it is constructed by discourse; every individual is the result of his culture, the result of the context and the episteme. That is, nothing is outside these situations (Bertens, 2001: 179). Likewise, individual authors who are engaged in the business of writing texts, consciously or unconsciously reflect what they gain from other related discourses, texts, or the culture; hence, both the author and the text are not autonomous. In short, “the work of
art is a product of the negotiation between a creator or class of creators, equipped with a complex, communally shared repertoire of conventions, and the institutions and practices of society”(Greenblatt as cited by Bertens, 2001: 140).
Power relations of a particular era shape how literature is produced, distributed and consumed (Zekye, (n.d.): 62; Brannigan, 2001: 169). Literary texts that were prohibited once, might at times be free and encouraged to be published, distributed, and read following changes in the cultural and political system. For new historicists who are influenced by Foucault, power relationship is not unidirectional in which the powerful dominates the powerless; or the upper class dominates the lower class. It is rather bi-directional where the lower class, in some way, resists the upper class, the factory workers resist the injustices of the factory owners and their respective directors (Foucault, 1972, 1979 as cited by Tyson, 2006: 284-285). New historicists believe that literary texts have functions within a network of power relations in society. As previously mentioned, “literature can serve to persuade us of the justice of particular causes; or can police the dominant ideas of a particular time by representing alternatives or deviations as threatening” (Brannigan, 2001: 172). Since literature is a discourse characterized by power relations, it can be considered as “a loyal watchdog, patrolling the fences of a conservative social order” (Brannigan, 2001: 172); it can also equally serve as an agent that brings resistance and change in the power relationships.
For new historicists, literature like any discourse, reflects ideology. It reflects and shapes individuals, groups, and even a nation (Bertens, 2001: 177; Tyson, 2006: 288). According to Bertens, “the literary text is a time- and place-bound verbal construction that is always, in one way or another political; because it is inevitably involved with a discourse or an ideology, it cannot help being a vehicle for power” (Bertens, 2001:177).
In spite of the contribution of New Historicism to literary theory and criticism, there have been some criticisms against it. Formalists, structuralists and deconstructionists criticize New Historicism for its focus on historical contexts and political orientations.
It is criticized for its rejection of both the autonomy and individual genius of the author and the autonomy of the literary work. New Historicism is also criticized for its failures to meet form of the literary work (Brannigan, 2001). In general, new historicists are criticized for their anti-formalist, anti-universalist and anti-absolutist agendas.
The application of New Historicism as one of the tools for analyzing the novels in this study helps in creating a relationshiop between the novels and the social contexts of their writing. Furthermore, the tool facilitates intertextual reading in which the study of the novels could be related to historical, political and legal documents. It further helps to investigate the relationship between the politics and the literature and the influence that the literature and the politics have on each other. Above all, the tool can function in combination with the other two tools, System Theory and Critical
Discourse Analysis, used in this study. Generally, New Historicsm enables to address the research questions that ask how the political contexts influenced the discourses in the selected Amharic novels, how the novels influenced the contexts during the three political periods, and the trend observed with regard to the representations of politics in Amharic novels along the years.

READ  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL INFORMATION POLICY

 Bourdieu’s Literary System Theory

The term ‘system theory’ is a general term that may be employed by various fields of systematic studies. Bourdieu’s system theory is one of the system theories9 that can be applied in the study of literature. It is basically a sociological theory that studies a network of assumed and observable relations (Boschetti, 2006: 146).
Like New Historicism, Bourdieu’s System Theory could be said to have developed as a counter to Formalism and Structuralism, for their being limited to the internal readings of the text, in isolation from external factors. Bourdieu (as cited in Boscheti, 2006: 145) explains, “Since internal readings eliminate the agents from consideration and isolate texts from the social conditions of their production, circulation and consumption, they cannot explain ‘what makes a given work a literary work’, nor the ‘value’ of a work and its properties”. In other words, Bourdieu wants to make the point that a literary work is valid only when it is studied in relation to the politics, culture, economy and history of that contemporary society. Bourdieu is interested in There are other system and poly system theories promoted by theoreticians like Even-Zohar Itamar (see, for instance, Poetics Today, Vol. 1, No. 1/2, Special Issue: Literature, Interpretation, Communication (Autumn, 1979), pp. 287-310 )

Introduction 
1.1.Background, the Research Problem and the Rationale
1.3. Research Questions
1.4. Objectives
1.5. Significance of the Study
1.6. Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
1.7. Analytical Framework and Assumption
1. 8. Research Design
1.9. Structure of the Dissertation
Chapter Two  Theoretical Concepts and the Context of the Study 
2.1. Theoretical Concepts .
2.2. The Context of the Study
2.3. Conclusion
Chapter Three Analyses and Interpretations of the Representations of Political Events of the Pre-war and the War Periods of Haileselassie (1930-1941) in Selected Amharic Novels 
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Discussion .
3.3. Conclusion
Chapter Four Analyses and Interpretations of Representations of Political Events of the Post-war Period (1941-1974).in Selected Amharic Novels
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Discussion
4.3. Conclusion .
Chapter Five  Analyses and Interpretations of Representations of the Politics of the Darg Period (Feb. 1974 – May 1991) in Selected Amharic Novels:. 
Chapter Six . Analyses and Interpretations of the Political Events of the EPRDF Period in the Selected Amharic Novels: 1991 – 2010.
Chapter Seven Summary and Conclusion
References
Appendixes

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
The Representation of Ethiopian Politics in Selected Amharic Novels: 1930 – 2010.

Related Posts