Postcritique

For the philosophical concept coined by Michael Polanyi, see Post-critical.

In literary criticism and cultural studies, postcritique is the attempt to find new forms of reading and interpretation that go beyond the methods of critique, critical theory, and ideological criticism.[1] Such methods have been characterized as a "hermeneutics of suspicion" by Paul Ricœur and as a "paranoid" or suspicious style of reading by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Proponents of postcritique argue that the interpretive practices associated with these ways of reading are now unlikely to yield useful or even interesting results. As Rita Felski and Elizabeth S. Anker put it in the introduction to Critique and Postcritique, "the intellectual or political payoff of interrogating, demystifying, and defamiliarizing is no longer quite so self-evident."[2] A postcritical reading of a literary text might instead emphasize emotion or affect, or describe various other phenomenological or aesthetic dimensions of the reader's experience. At other times, it might focus on issues of reception, explore philosophical insights gleaned via the process of reading, pose formalist questions of the text, or seek to resolve a "sense of confusion."[3]

Importantly, postcritique is not a straightforward repudiation of critique, but instead seeks to supplement it with new interpretative practices. It views critique as being valuable in certain situations, but inadequate in others. As Felski claims in The Uses of Literature, critical and postcritical readings can and should coexist. "In the long run," she argues, "we should all heed Ricœur’s advice to combine a willingness to suspect with an eagerness to listen; there is no reason why our readings cannot blend analysis and attachment, criticism and love."[4] Felski is careful to point out, in her later study The Limits of Critique, that her argument "is not conceived as a polemic against critique."[5] In a similar spirit, Christopher Castiglia claims that critique can be salvaged if scholars renounce "critiquiness," which he associates with smug knowingness and thoroughgoing skepticism.[6]

Postcritical approaches to texts are often experimental, concerned with discovering new styles, postures, and stances of reading, as well as "testing out new possibilities and intellectual alternatives" to the standard operations of critique.[7] According to Matthew Mullins, postcritique has important implications for understanding the broader role and purpose of the humanities. He claims that it offers practitioners both "positive language and methods from which to make a case for why the humanities matter at a moment when higher education faces threats from forces such a privatization and utilitarianism."[8]

  1. ^ Skiveren, Tobias (2022). "Postcritique and the Problem of the Lay Reader". New Literary History. 53 (1): 161–180. doi:10.1353/nlh.2022.0006. S2CID 249419866.
  2. ^ Anker & Felski (2017). "Introduction". In Anker & Felski (ed.). Critique and Postcritique. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-8223-7304-9.
  3. ^ Moi, Toril (2017). Revolution of the Ordinary. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 180. ISBN 9780226464442.
  4. ^ Felski, Rita (2008-05-16). Uses of Literature. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 22. doi:10.1002/9781444302790. ISBN 9781444302790.
  5. ^ Felski, Rita (2015). The Limits of Critique. University of Chicago Press. p. 5. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226294179.001.0001. ISBN 9780226294032.
  6. ^ Castiglia, Christopher (2013-09-01). "Critiquiness". English Language Notes. 51 (2): 79–85. doi:10.1215/00138282-51.2.79. ISSN 0013-8282.
  7. ^ Anker, Elizabeth S. and Felski, Rita (2017). "Introduction". Critique and Postcritique. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780822373049. OCLC 1021102259.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Mullins, Matthew (2018). "Postcritique". In Di Leo, Jeffrey (ed.). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Literary and Cultural Theory. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. doi:10.5040/9781350012837. ISBN 9781350012806. S2CID 246639378.