{"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":"19 1","pages":"381 - 407"},"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\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"381 - 407\"},\"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\":\"0\",\"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":"0","JCRName":"FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
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.