从新批评到后批评:凯特·米利特的现在史研究方法

IF 0.1 4区 艺术学 N/A FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION
Leah Allen
{"title":"从新批评到后批评:凯特·米利特的现在史研究方法","authors":"Leah Allen","doi":"10.13110/criticism.63.4.0381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Kate Millett has not been adequately located in the history of literary criticism. Although her 1970 text Sexual Politics was part of the breakdown of New Criticism's hegemony in US English departments, Millett's early readers primarily understood it as a work of social criticism linked to the emerging second-wave feminist movement. When critics did attend to Millett's use of literature, many found it scarcely literary criticism at all because it defied every tenet of then-dominant New Criticism. Others judged Millett's de-aestheticizing method as \"bad\" literary criticism for its attention to politics over artistic construction, especially as New Criticism's influence waned and her resistance to New Criticism became less obvious at the text's central struggle. As such, we have not fully appreciated Millett's anticipation of cultural studies, nor her influence on contemporary modes of reading. Feminist literary criticism appears as a political intervention into an ongoing enterprise rather than as a foundational driver of changes in modes of interpretation. Here, I contextualize Millett's method in the transitional moment when New Criticism lost its grip on US literary studies and reassess feminist literary criticism's influence on how we read in the present. This reconsideration matters now more than ever as we witness the resurgence of de-aestheticizing methods within yet another transitional moment in the history of criticism.","PeriodicalId":42834,"journal":{"name":"FILM CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From New Criticism to Postcritique: Kate Millett's Method in The History of The Present\",\"authors\":\"Leah Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.13110/criticism.63.4.0381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Kate Millett has not been adequately located in the history of literary criticism. Although her 1970 text Sexual Politics was part of the breakdown of New Criticism's hegemony in US English departments, Millett's early readers primarily understood it as a work of social criticism linked to the emerging second-wave feminist movement. When critics did attend to Millett's use of literature, many found it scarcely literary criticism at all because it defied every tenet of then-dominant New Criticism. Others judged Millett's de-aestheticizing method as \\\"bad\\\" literary criticism for its attention to politics over artistic construction, especially as New Criticism's influence waned and her resistance to New Criticism became less obvious at the text's central struggle. As such, we have not fully appreciated Millett's anticipation of cultural studies, nor her influence on contemporary modes of reading. Feminist literary criticism appears as a political intervention into an ongoing enterprise rather than as a foundational driver of changes in modes of interpretation. Here, I contextualize Millett's method in the transitional moment when New Criticism lost its grip on US literary studies and reassess feminist literary criticism's influence on how we read in the present. This reconsideration matters now more than ever as we witness the resurgence of de-aestheticizing methods within yet another transitional moment in the history of criticism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FILM CRITICISM\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FILM CRITICISM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13110/criticism.63.4.0381\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FILM CRITICISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13110/criticism.63.4.0381","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:凯特·米莱特在文学批评史上一直没有得到充分的定位。尽管她1970年的作品《性政治》是美国英语系新批评主义霸权瓦解的一部分,但米勒特的早期读者主要将其理解为与新兴的第二波女权主义运动有关的社会批评作品。当评论家注意到米莱特对文学的使用时,许多人发现它根本算不上文学批评,因为它违背了当时占主导地位的新批评主义的每一个原则。其他人认为米莱特的去审美方法是“糟糕的”文学批评,因为它关注政治而不是艺术建构,特别是当新批评主义的影响减弱,她对新批评主义的抵制在文本的中心斗争中变得不那么明显时。因此,我们没有充分认识到米勒特对文化研究的预期,也没有充分认识到她对当代阅读模式的影响。女权主义文学批评似乎是对一项正在进行的事业的政治干预,而不是作为解释模式变化的基本驱动力。在这里,我将Millett的方法置于新批评主义对美国文学研究失去控制的过渡时期,并重新评估女权主义文学批评对我们现在阅读方式的影响。这种重新思考现在比以往任何时候都更重要,因为我们在批评历史的另一个过渡时刻见证了去审美化方法的复兴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From New Criticism to Postcritique: Kate Millett's Method in The History of The Present
Abstract:Kate Millett has not been adequately located in the history of literary criticism. Although her 1970 text Sexual Politics was part of the breakdown of New Criticism's hegemony in US English departments, Millett's early readers primarily understood it as a work of social criticism linked to the emerging second-wave feminist movement. When critics did attend to Millett's use of literature, many found it scarcely literary criticism at all because it defied every tenet of then-dominant New Criticism. Others judged Millett's de-aestheticizing method as "bad" literary criticism for its attention to politics over artistic construction, especially as New Criticism's influence waned and her resistance to New Criticism became less obvious at the text's central struggle. As such, we have not fully appreciated Millett's anticipation of cultural studies, nor her influence on contemporary modes of reading. Feminist literary criticism appears as a political intervention into an ongoing enterprise rather than as a foundational driver of changes in modes of interpretation. Here, I contextualize Millett's method in the transitional moment when New Criticism lost its grip on US literary studies and reassess feminist literary criticism's influence on how we read in the present. This reconsideration matters now more than ever as we witness the resurgence of de-aestheticizing methods within yet another transitional moment in the history of criticism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
FILM CRITICISM
FILM CRITICISM FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Film Criticism is a peer-reviewed, online publication whose aim is to bring together scholarship in the field of cinema and media studies in order to present the finest work in this area, foregrounding textual criticism as a primary value. Our readership is academic, although we strive to publish material that is both accessible to undergraduates and engaging to established scholars. With over 40 years of continuous publication, Film Criticism is the third oldest academic film journal in the United States. We have published work by such international scholars as Dudley Andrew, David Bordwell, David Cook, Andrew Horton, Ann Kaplan, Marcia Landy, Peter Lehman, Janet Staiger, and Robin Wood. Equally important, FC continues to present work from emerging generations of film and media scholars representing multiple critical, cultural and theoretical perspectives. Film Criticism is an open access academic journal that allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, and link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose except where otherwise noted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信