Guillory’s dense excerpts deal with a new theoretical criticism of viewing the literary canon. Instead of looking at the representation of social groups and who is included or excluded (minority groups such as women and queers) in the selection of canonical texts or the aesthetic value ascribed to a text, Guillory wishes to view the literary canon in terms of the distribution of cultural capital. In order to view the representation or non-representation in terms of social identity, the author is brought back into the equation, after their supposed death with Barthes in 1968.
But what exactly is this “canon” we speak of? Guillory points out it is ‘an imaginary totality of works. No one has access to the canon as a totality…it never appears as a complete and uncontested list in any particular time and place.’ (p. 194). Traditional canonical texts are typically thought to reinforce the hegemony of their time determined by ruling elites. Noncanonical texts are those not included in the literary canon. They may endorse a transgressive sentiment or be the works of the modern day. The novel as a form was not included in the literary canon for a long time. It is evident of the canon’s value as a discursive instrument of transmission. Interestingly, Guillory points out that some texts deemed noncanonical primarily will often resurface in the canon itself, as a significant marker for the acknowledgement of a particular social group identified as making a contribution to the progression of society. An example of this might include Charles Dickens’ place in the literary canon and his concern with social reform in his depiction of the working class.
Within his new theoretical framework, Guillory looks to pedagogical institutions as the ‘locus of real power (for the distribution of cultural capital), and therefore a good place for political praxis to define its object.’ (p. 197). Literacy is not described in terms of binaries – either being able to write or to not, rather it is described as a matter of circumstance. What ‘literacy’ (in terms of the humanities) boils down to is the opportunity one has to gain access to these cultural capital goods rather than cultural images. The process of inclusion and exclusion for Guillory becomes an issue of whether people have access to literacy. Because not all of society has this access, the formation of the canon will forever be an unequal representation of the social order. The ‘school’ remains as a site of critique since it is responsible for the agency as well as production of unequal social relations.
In the seminar, I asked the class if there were any other particular sites in which the decisions were made of the distribution of cultural capital. The publishing industry came up, notably as part of their inclusion in ‘classics,’ such Penguin’s orange range. Yet the ‘school’ remained the imminent site for the exchange and distribution of cultural capital.
I found it very interesting in your post how you pointed out that the novel was not part of the canon for a long time.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for my interest mainly is because we find it difficult to imagine a time when the novel was not a widespread format. We tend to view the past through the lenses of our contemporary times, but when we do remove those lenses the past becomes incredibly muggy.
A time before Dickens, a time before the Brontes. I wonder which authors people in the future will look back on and wonder how they could ever not be part of the canon.
In response to your question to the class, I wonder if they aren't sites for the distribution of cultural capital beyond the curriculum? Though Guillory emphasises the university, I think book clubs, libraries, and perhaps even book stores might have a small role to play in assigning kudos to texts. What about sites within the media, such as that ABC top 100 books countdown they do every blue moon? Or the 'site' of social interaction, where a book's place in certain person's hand and might increase its cultural capital for someone else in that immediate social network?
ReplyDeleteI think that while there are other sites for the distribution of cultural capital, it is really the school which first initiated us into the world of the canon. After learning of the canon's existence, all other texts we encounter will be positioned somewhere in relation to it. I think that while there are many institutions that assign kudos to texts, whether or not these actually belong to the canon is determined by the cultured elite that influence what is taught in schools and universities.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting point, I hadn't even thought about the site of interaction. I think we must all at some point recommend books we believe to have cultural capital and then the cycle continues with those people doing the same, widening the reach of the book.
ReplyDelete