Literary Theory
Series 2: Handout #5
Richard Ohmann (1931): Professor at MIT; colleague of Chomsky; wants to make literary studies an instrument of progressive social change instead of a means of reinforcing existing power structures. Pretty much a Marxian interpreter of literary institutions.
“The Shaping of a Canon:
Q. What are your three favorite
book-length works of “Literature”? Now
what three books do you REALLY like?
Q. What should we read? Why should we read it? Should we have canons of taste? Who decides?
On what grounds? Do you agree with Oprah’s choices? The Norton’s? Mine?
Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2003): French, friend of Foucault, writes about the sociology of taste, shows how it is enmeshed in capitalism or power (more broadly defined).
“Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment
of Taste”: “Art/literature” operates according to an inverse economy in
which “cultural capital” accrues to works that are regarded as outside the
“field of power.” The best scenario is
for a well-known book to be banned by the state, thereby making admiration for
the book (paradoxically, by those who share in state power), a means of
signifying progressive politics (and concealing their real power). In other words, the rich admire subversive
art because it makes them superior to the masses, not only in terms of power
and money (which are morally suspect in the post-Marxist, vestigial Christian
West), but also superior in moral virtue/taste/intelligence. Literature/art is a tool for reinforcing the
power of elites (much like the fashions of the Court of Louis the XVI enhanced
the king’s power—remember Rousseau, Voltaire, and Franklin as court
subversives). Tom Wolfe called this
“Radical Chic.”
Q. How do your
artistic/literary/material tastes (cultural capital) define your social class
(i.e., your real power).
Q. How did you acquire these tastes?
Q. What is the
foundation for preferring these tastes to others’ tastes?