Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Criticism between scientificity and ideology : theoretical impasses in F.R. Leavis and P. Macherey Ezroura, Mohammed 1990

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1990_A1 E97.pdf [ 18.75MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0100313.json
JSON-LD: 1.0100313+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0100313.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0100313+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0100313+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0100313+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0100313 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0100313.txt
Citation
1.0100313.ris

Full Text

CRITICISM BETWEEN SCIENTIFICITY AND IDEOLOGY: THEORETICAL IMPASSES IN F.R. LEAVIS AND P. MACHEREY By MOHAMMED EZROURA L i c e n c e - e s - L e t t r e s , Mohamed V U n i v e r s i t y , Morocco, 1978 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Essex, England, 1980  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Programme i n Comparative  Literature)  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1990 (§) Mohammed EZROURA, 1990  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives.  It is understood that copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department of  COMPARATIVE LITERATURE;  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  D a t e  DE-6 (2/88)  September 1990  M . EZROURA  Ab<|stract  While f o c u s s i n g on the metaphor of s c i e n t i f i c i t y  in  L e a v i s ' s and Macherey's w r i t i n g s , t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n addresses other q u e s t i o n s philosophy  c e n t r a l to c r i t i c i s m ,  c u l t u r a l theory,  of s c i e n c e . Whereas L e a v i s opposes  Macherey proposes " s c i e n t i f i c  criticism"  t h e o r e t i c a l p r a c t i c e . Between the two  and  the  scientificity,  as i m p e r a t i v e  critics,  to  scientificity  r e v e a l s i t s major metamorphoses.  T h i s study  i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r major p a r t s . P a r t  s i t u a t e s the concept of s c i e n t i f i c i t y between c r i t i c s and p h i l o s o p h e r s  i n the modern debate  of s c i e n c e . I compare t h e i r  p r o b l e m a t i z a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y t o the way been r e p r e s e n t e d  in literary  boundary between s c i e n t i f i c  criticism. and  One  literary  The  t h i s notion  has  debate b l u r s the  knowledge, and  brings  the q u e s t i o n o f i d e o l o g y i n s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o u r s e t o the f o r e . Scientificity  i s thus bound with i d e o l o g y as  an  epistemological practice.  P a r t two scientificity.  focusses on L e a v i s ' s r e j e c t i o n of In t h r e e chapters here I i n v e s t i g a t e the  s i g n i f i c a n c e of L e a v i s ' s d e f i n i t i o n of " o r g a n i c c u l t u r e , " "civilization,"  " s c i e n c e , " and  "criticism."  ii  These are a l l  r o o t e d i n A r n o l d ' s c u l t u r a l paradigm, which p r i v i l e g e s a t r a d i t i o n a l order. L e a v i s ' s o p p o s i t i o n t o "theory," and  "philosophy" p r o b l e m a t i z e s  "science,"  h i s p r i n c i p l e s of "precision,"  " a n a l y s i s , " and "standards." H i s c o n t r o v e r s i e s w i t h  CP.  Snow's s c i e n t i s m and with Marxism r e v e a l h i s concern theory and s c i e n t i f i c epistemology. "ambiguity,"  with  H i s defence o f  and " i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f d e f i n i t i o n " a l s o makes h i s  framework c o n f r o n t a t h e o r e t i c a l impasse t h a t i s r e v e a l e d by a d e s i r e t o t h e o r i z e c r i t i c i s m — L e a v i s ' s duty towards s o c i e t y — and a f e a r o f theory and s c i e n c e , p e r c e i v e d as d e s t r u c t i v e .  P a r t Three, comprising  t h r e e chapter,  considers  Macherey's s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m . H i s n o t i o n s o f t h e " s t r u c t u r e of absence" and "symptomatic r e a d i n g " a r e c e n t r a l t o h i s theorization of c r i t i c i s m , formulated  s c i e n c e , and i d e o l o g y . These a r e  through Freud's c a t e g o r i e s o f dream a n a l y s i s ,  Saussure's n o t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e , and A l t h u s s e r ' s c o n c e p t i o n of i d e o l o g y . F o r Macherey, s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m negates i d e o l o g y . But h i s emphasis on "absence" as c o n s t i t u t i v e o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y b r i n g s h i s epistemology  t o a t h e o r e t i c a l impasse t h a t  resembles L e a v i s ' s . Macherey's anchoring  of meaning i n  economic s t r u c t u r e s , i n i d e o l o g y , and i n Marxism as " s c i e n c e , " problematizes  h i s s c i e n t i f i c p r o j e c t because i t abandons  "absence."  iii  P a r t Four concludes  the d i s s e r t a t i o n by i n v e s t i g a t i n g  ways i n which L e a v i s and Macherey i l l u s t r a t e an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l phenomenon i n l i t e r a r y  the importance of  studies: criticism's  s t r u g g l e w i t h s c i e n t i f i c i t y . Whether opposed or defended, s c i e n t i f i c i t y has helped  criticism  t o emulate the hegemonic  d i s c o u r s e of s c i e n c e and t o combat r i v a l c r i t i c a l s t r a t e g i e s . However, t o d i s p e l " s c i e n t i f i c " d e l u s i o n s , c r i t i c i s m s c r u t i n i z e i t s a f f i l i a t i o n with i d e o l o g y both i n method and  i n theory.  iv  must  scientific  Table of Contents  P a r t One: A Theoretical Introduction: Criticism "after" Scientificity P a r t Two: L e a v i s and the Question of S c i e n c e : C r i t i c a l Knowledge, Standards, and V a l u a t i o n I. R e v i s i n g the A r n o l d i a n T r a d i t i o n : L e a v i s ' s C r i t i c i s m , S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge, and "Organic C u l t u r e " I I . Towards " L i v i n g " C r i t i c a l Standards: The N e c e s s i t y of " P r e c i s i o n " and Ambiguous Meaning I I I . Beyond " S c i e n t i s m " and C u l t u r a l Determinism: L e a v i s a g a i n s t C P . Snow and Marxism  38  94 152  P a r t Three: Towards a " S c i e n t i f i c C r i t i c i s m " : Macherey, L i t e r a r y Production, Absence, and Ideology IV. Beyond " C r i t i c a l F a l l a c i e s " : Elements o f Macherey's Theory of " s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m "  206  V. Towards a Theory o f S t r u c t u r e s : T h e o r i z i n g the Text and Knowing i t s "Absence"  253  VI. Ideology and L i t e r a t u r e : C r i t i c i s m and the S c i e n t i f i c i t y of t h e o r e t i c a l Knowledge  326  P a r t Four: Macherey a f t e r L e a v i s , or the Ideology of S c i e n t i f i c i t y i n C r i t i c i s m  Bibliography  384  408  (i) Primary Texts ( i i ) Secondary,Sources  v  ACKNOWLE DGEMENT  I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my t h a n k s a n d i n d e b t e d n e s s t o t h e m e m b e r s o f my s u p e r v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e , D r . L o r r a i n e W e i r , Dr. R a l p h S a r k o n a k , and Dr. Roy T u r n e r . T h e i r v a l u a b l e g u i d a n c e a n d e x c e p t i o n a l p a t i e n c e h a v e h e l p e d me t h r o u g h s o m e d i f f i c u l t moments d u r i n g t h e w r i t i n g o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Other p r o f e s s o r s o f mine i n Morocco, E n g l a n d and Canada a l s o d r e s e r v e m a n y t h a n k s f o r h a v i n g c o n t r i b u t e d t o my e d u c a t i o n . Many t h a n k s t o P r o f e s s o r s G e o f f r e y O'Kane i n I r e l a n d , S u s a n K a p p e l e r i n West Germany, V a l e r i e R a o u l , Graham Good, and R o g e r Seamon i n Canada f o r h a v i n g b e e n a s o u r c e o f encouragement and s u p p o r t o f a l l s o r t s . My s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e a n d s p e c i a l t h a n k s g o t o t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r the Graduate F e l l o w s h i p s t h e y h a v e o f f e r e d me. W i t h o u t t h e i r b e n e v o l e n t a i d , my g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d . Many t h a n k s a l s o t o the Morocco-American B i - N a t i o n a l Commission, whose summer r e s e a r c h g r a n t a t S a n t a B a r b a r a i n 1990 h a s made t h e f i n a l i z a t i o n o f t h i s p r o j e c t a n d my r e t u r n t o V a n c o u v e r possible.  vi  In t h e "human" s c i e n c e s one o f t e n f i n d s an " i d e o l o g i c a l f a l l a c y " common t o many s c i e n t i f i c approaches, which c o n s i s t s i n b e l i e v i n g t h a t one's own approach i s not i d e o l o g i c a l because i t succeeds i n being " o b j e c t i v e " and " n a t u r a l " . . . T h e o r e t i c a l r e s e a r c h i s a form o f s o c i a l p r a c t i c e . Everybody who wants t o know something wants t o know i t i n o r d e r t o do something. . . . . . .1 conceal readers Theory  t h i n k t h a t i t i s more " s c i e n t i f i c " not t o my own m o t i v a t i o n s , so as t o spare my any " s c i e n t i f i c " d e l u s i o n s . (U. Eco, A o f S e m i o t i c s 29)  La grammatologie d o i t d e c o n s t r u i r e t o u t ce q u i l i e l e concept e t l e s normes de l a s c i e n t i f i c i t e a 1'ontotheologie, au logocentrisme, au phohologisme. C'est un t r a v a i l immense e t i n t e r m i n a b l e . ( J . D e r r i d a , P o s i t i o n s 48)  1  Part One:  A Theoretical  Introduction:  Criticism 'after' S c i e n t i f i c i t y  In i t s search f o r new legitimizing c r i t i c i s m has  i t s own  directions  e x i s t e n c e and  taken d i f f e r e n t  and  1  ways of  practice,  modern l i t e r a r y  roads t h a t have brought i t  sometimes i n t o d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n with s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o u r s e , but  other times i n t o an uneasy a l l i a n c e with i t . T h i s search  has  been marked by  two  major d i r e c t i o n s :  anti-scientific,  anti-theoretical,  committed to the  project  one  is  whereas the  other i s  of e l a b o r a t i n g a systematized  methodology of l i t e r a r y a n a l y s i s .  Such a s t a t e  of a f f a i r s  seems to have endowed modern c r i t i c i s m with a dual whose two  s i d e s i t has  been t r y i n g to r e c o n c i l e  q u e s t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y came to i t s a t t e n t i o n . t h e r e f o r e , imperative to study the  identity  ever s i n c e It i s ,  metamorphoses of  this  1 The n o t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y (in French " s c i e n t i f i c i t e " ) as used throughout t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s a metaphor r e f e r r i n g to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of being s c i e n t i f i c or the c l a i m t o s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, p r e c i s i o n i n method, r i g o r i n a n a l y s i s , and the u n i v e r s a l i t y of t r u t h - f i n d i n g . Although the term i t s e l f i s not c i t e d i n the OED, i t i s commonly used nowadays i n the d i s c o u r s e s of l i t e r a r y theory and the p h i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e . The c l o s e s t term to i t t h a t the OED c i t e s i s " s c i e n t i f i c a l n e s s " , meaning "the q u a l i t y of b e i n g s c i e n t i f i c , " (2668). See p a r t i c u l a r l y R i c h a r d Olson, ed. Science as Metaphor (Belmond, C a l . : Wadsworth, 1971), chaps. 1 and 10.  the  2 t h e r e f o r e , imperative  to study the metamorphoses of t h i s  metaphor of s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n c r i t i c i s m i f we  are t o grasp  the  p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s metaphor i t s e l f as w e l l as development of the d i s c i p l i n e of c r i t i c i s m . metamorphoses manifest  the  These  themselves i n the v a r i o u s ways  " s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m " or "a s c i e n c e of l i t e r a r y has been r e p r e s e n t e d — e i t h e r  production"  c e l e b r a t e d or d e c r i e d by  c o n f l i c t i n g c r i t i c a l s t r a t e g i e s — b o t h as a methodology of t e x t u a l exegesis  and as an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l e n t e r p r i s e ,  y i e l d i n g v a l u a b l e knowledge. I t i s i n t h i s context t h a t I i n t e n d t o d i s c u s s the c r i t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of F.R. and  P. Macherey to the debate of t h i s l i t e r a r y  epistemological problematic,  Leavis  and  f o r each has taken a p a r t i c u l a r  p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s the q u e s t i o n of theory and c r i t i c i s m . U l t i m a t e l y , the study  scientific  of the metamorphoses of  s c i e n t i f i c i t y w i l l r e v e a l the i d e o l o g i c a l d r i v e s m o t i v a t i n g the c r i t i c a l methodologies both L e a v i s and Macherey have expounded, as w e l l as the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s of  theory,  understood as an academic p r a c t i c e .  Rene Wellek d e s c r i b e s such a s i t u a t i o n i n c r i t i c a l  theory  as f o l l o w s :  . . . l i t e r a r y theory has s p l i t i n t o two f a c t i o n s : s c i e n c e and would-be s c i e n c e versus i n t u i t i o n ; those who want t o construe a u n i v e r s a l and u n i v e r s a l l y v a l i d scheme or matrix of l i t e r a t u r e and those who plunge i n t o the mind or consciousness of a poet by procedures t h a t are  3 confessedly purely personal, unrepeatable, not s u b j e c t t o any c o n t r o l by l a w s o f e v i d e n c e . ("Science, Pseudo-science, and I n t u i t i o n i n R e c e n t Criticism" 78-9)  Indeed,  the  concern  the  search  the  desire to  for systemic  peculiarity in  the  Since  of  history  Kroeber,  "The  the  f o r the  late  formulate the of  universality  models of  nineteenth  Rise  literary  Literary century,  of Modern S c i e n c e "  Study,  8;  and  and  advent of  social  Herbert  and  Criticism;  the  Critic  later  and  145),  development  efforts  to  E d w a r d W.  literary  (see Said,  critical  theory,  emulate the  powerful  discourse  split  between the  that occurred  humanities has  around the  a l s o been,  turn of  since then,  knowledge obsolete  i n the  modern w o r l d ,  of  a result  century,  to guarantee  acknowledged place w i t h i n the  has  reputed and  epistemological practice.  and  the  Science  Text,  and  through  i t s  science of  the  in  order  radical  and  the  Criticism's  for itself  an  institutions  of  t o avoid becoming As  Keywords  multiplied i t s  natural sciences  this  rising  Eichner,  the  especially  Karl  326-39).  J. Muller,  World,  into  e n t e r p r i s e . As  (see  the  methodologies,  The  criticism,  t o v a l i d a t e i t s own  phenomena  Raymond W i l l i a m s ,  i t s v a r i e d languages sciences  Hans  and  the  1883-1983"  (see  2 78-79), w i t h the  for  studies  which witnessed  discourse  criteria,  interpretation,  laws t o account  twentieth century  E v o l u t i o n of  critical  t e x t have been s t r i k i n g  hegemony o f modern s c i e n t i f i c "The  literary  scientific  literary  of  aim  an  J o h n Crowe Ransom p u t  i t  4 clearly  i n 1938:  precise  and  systematic,  d e v e l o p e d by persons  —  "Criticism  the  (The  World's  this  "Scrutiny"  p r o j e c t and  Cambridge.  The  the  as  "the  a  call  and  concern  Channel  of  Nanterre  revolution"  (Henri  rolling  before  English  critical  was  discipline idea  i n The  "critical strengthen to  movement a t  call  method,  viability  this  i t had  The  As  and  instance  on  Lettres et  Explosion  Cambridge,  idea  of  the  other  Sciences  Humaines  started  unlike  although  i t s heuristic  the  the  called  latter for  endeavours,  methodological  disciplines,  side  "theoretical  139)  "explosion"  See  108-14).  Indeed, because c r i t i c i s m  from neighboring  of  Leavis  the  "Scrutiny"  Sorbonne. Not  to borrow various  sciences.  and  u n i v e r s i t y at  thought.  from which the  French  of  the  f o r more s p e c u l a t i v e i n q u i r y ; i n i t s s e a r c h  terminologies natural  the  learned  (Towards S t a n d a r d s x x i i .  i t took over the  u n i v e r s i t y " (111). the  is in  criticism  Moment o f  i n 1968  of  institutionalization  of  of  F a c u l t e des  Lefebvre,  less politicized,  seat  be  whole L e a v i s i t e  f o r the  inseparable"  i n France  effort  i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the  f o r the  i s the  i t must  or  329).  i s the  Another example t h a t p a r a l l e l s the  sustained  Body  t h e n was  Francis Mulhern  of  means t h a t  i t s proper  case  separate  u n i v e r s i t y was  also  this  collective  Examplifying  says,  and  w h i c h means t h a t  universities"  criticism  must become more s c i e n t i f i c ,  a had  to  i t  had  for  concepts  sometimes  and  from  the  5  C e r t a i n l y , the emergence of c r i t i c i s m as a d i s t i n c t academic d i s c i p l i n e accompanying the establishment  of  the  E n g l i s h T r i p o s a t Cambridge immediately a f t e r the F i r s t World War  should be assessed  w i t h i n t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e : as a response  t o the hegemony of s c i e n c e and  a s t r o n g d e s i r e t o emulate the  methods of s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o u r s e .  2  The  literary critic  e x e m p l i f i e s t h i s phenomenon par e x c e l l e n c e whose e a r l y works, namely The  Meaning of Meaning  w r i t t e n i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with C.K. Literary Criticism  (192 4), and  p r i m a r i l y address the questions and  i s I.A.  who  Richards, (1923),  Ogden, P r i n c i p l e s of  Science  and  Poetry  (1926),  of the nature of communication  s c i e n t i f i c methodology i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o  criticism.  With s p e c i a l emphasis on the a n a l y s i s of language s i t u a t i o n s , Richards  t a c k l e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "thoughts, words and  t h i n g s " i n order t o e l a b o r a t e a "new "the Science  of Symbolism"  s c i e n c e " which he  calls  (The Meaning of Meaning 242).  argues t h a t " i f an account of s i g n - s i t u a t i o n s i s t o s c i e n t i f i c i t must take i t s o b s e r v a t i o n s  He  be  from the most  s u i t a b l e i n s t a n c e s , and must not d e r i v e i t s g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s from an e x c e p t i o n a l case" formulations  (19). In R i c h a r d s '  of the i d e a of c r i t i c i s m ,  early  scientificity  acquired  On the r i s e o f c r i t i c i s m as a d i s c i p l e see D. J . Palmer, The R i s e of E n g l i s h S t u d i e s (London: Oxford UP, 1965); E. M. W. T i l l y a r d , The Muse Unchained (London: Bowers, 1958); and F r a n c i s Mulhern, op. c i t . ; T e r r y Eagleton, L i t e r a r y Theory: an I n t r o d u c t i o n (Oxford: B l a c k w e l l , 1983), chap. 1.  6 the meaning of a g e n e r a l i z i n g and u n i v e r s a l i z i n g Enhanced by an e m p i r i c a l evidence, Practical Criticism aimed a t impersonal,  (1929),  as developed  the p r i n c i p l e of  principle. in his  scientificity  " d i s i n t e r e s t e d , " and o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s .  The protocol-poems analyzed i n t h i s book i n d i c a t e the  extent  t o which the e m p i r i c a l method Richards sought t o r e f i n e  tried  t o s i m u l a t e the s c i e n t i s t ' s work i n a l a b o r a t o r y : o b s e r v i n g , d i s s e c t i n g , a n a l y z i n g "the words on the page," and deducing  " p r i n c i p l e s of l i t e r a r y  finally  criticism."  However, such a d r i v e towards u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e s  and  n o n - s u b j e c t i v e methodology i n l i t e r a r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s not t o t a l l y devoid of any e t h i c a l dimensions. scientificity in criticism s t i l l dimension.  Richards*  n o t i o n of  c a r r i e s w i t h i n i t a moral  H i s Poetry and Science p o i n t s out, i n the end,  l i m i t a t i o n s of the s c i e n t i f i c apprehension  of the world  the  and  argues f o r the n e c e s s i t y of r e s t o r i n g a moral worldview t o c r i t i c i s m through  the r e i n s t a t e m e n t of p o e t r y and  i t s moral  f u n c t i o n w i t h i n the world of s c i e n t i f i c method: I f a c o n f l i c t which should never have a r i s e n extends much f u r t h e r , a moral chaos such as man has never experienced may be expected. Our p r o t e c t i o n . . . i s i n p o e t r y . I t i s capable o f s a v i n g us. . . , of p r e s e r v i n g us or r e s c u i n g us from c o n f u s i o n and f r u s t r a t i o n . The p o e t i c f u n c t i o n i s the source, and the t r a d i t i o n of p o e t r y i s the guardian, of the s u p r a - s c i e n t i f i c myths. ( P o e t r i e s and S c i e n c e s 78)  7 T h i s view, which p e r c e i v e s p o e t r y as the s a v i o u r of a Western world on the b r i n k of chaos c l e a r l y rephrases Mathew Arnold's view of p o e t r y i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o s c i e n c e : "Poetry i s indeed something d i v i n e , " says A r n o l d . " I t i s a t once the c e n t r e and circumference of knowledge; i t i s t h a t which comprehends a l l s c i e n c e , and t h a t t o which a l l s c i e n c e must be referred" ghost has  ( " L i t e r a t u r e and S c i e n c e , " 405).  In f a c t ,  Arnold's  i n h a b i t e d n e a r l y a l l t r a d i t i o n a l i s t c r i t i c s of the  Anglo-American c r i t i c a l t r a d i t i o n . statements  3  Richards*s  later  about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between poetry,  criticism,  and s c i e n c e veered t o a f u r t h e r p r i v i l e g i n g of the world a r t and of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . In 1954, the  of  he spoke i n favour of  critic: The degree of complexity, the number and v a r i e t y of the components and the m u l t i p l i c i t y and s p e c i a l t y of interdependences o p e r a t i v e i n the poets the L i t e r a r y C r i t i c s t u d i e s , i s so much h i g h e r than i n the E x p e r i m e n t a l i s t ' s pigeons, c l e v e r b i r d s though they be, t h a t " l a w f u l " changes meaning i n the v a s t ascent. I t reassumes many of the e t h i c a l and l e g a l i m p l i c a t i o n s the E x p e r i m e n t a l i s t s t r i p t from i t . ("Notes Towards an Agreement between L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m and Some of the S c i e n c e s " 52)  In R i c h a r d s ' s c r i t i c a l u n i v e r s e , the domain of the c r i t i c has turned out t o rank above t h a t of the  literary  scientist  See C h r i s B a l d i c k , The S o c i a l M i s s i o n of E n g l i s h C r i t i c i s m : 1848-1932 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), pp. 40-1 and passim; and Murray K r i e g e r , "The C r i t i c a l Legacy of Mathew A r n o l d or, the Strange Brotherhood of T.S. E l i o t , I.A. R i c h a r d s , and Northrop F r y e , " The Southern Review 5.2 (1969), pp. 457-74.  8 because the former e n c l o s e s more " m u l t i p l i c i t y i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s of independent v a r i a b l e s "  and  (52), whereas the  world o f s c i e n c e remains l i m i t e d by i t s laws of p r e c i s i o n , o b s e r v a t i o n , and experiment. R i c h a r d s ' s f i n a l message i s t h a t s c i e n c e tends t o exhaust the dimension of the unknowable and the mysterious i n the u n i v e r s e . H i s p o s i t i o n thus r e f l e c t s a Kantian i n h e r i t a n c e t h a t maintains the incommensurability of the phenomenal world: As students o f the humanities, we know t h i s t o be a deeper matter than any s c i e n c e , as y e t , has e x p l o r e d ; a matter o f what man i s and s h o u l d be, of what h i s world i s and should be, o f what the God he should worship and obey i s and s h o u l d be. A l l t h i s , the s c i e n t i s t — l i n g u i s t i c o r o t h e r — w i l l admit t o be beyond h i s purview as a S c i e n t i s t . What i s done and what can be done he can i n q u i r e i n t o , but what should be done i s not w i t h i n h i s p r o v i n c e . (47) However, i t was  around the l a t e 1960s i n p a r t i c u l a r  t h a t l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , both i n Europe and North America, focused on the n o t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y as p a r t o f a wider concern f o r t h e o r y (see F r e d r i c Jameson, " P e r i o d i z i n g the 60s" 193). V a r i o u s c r i t i c s f e l t t h a t t h e i r p r a c t i c e which  was  mostly u n i v e r s i t y - b o u n d had reached a stage o f s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e t h a t would warrant t h e i r unabashed  claim to s c i e n t i f i c i t y .  P o e t i c s , S t r u c t u r a l i s m , Marxism, Semiology, D e c o n s t r u c t i o n , and N a r r a t o l o g y — b e f o r e them —  j u s t l i k e Formalism and New  Criticism  c l a i m e d a t one time or another the s c i e n t i f i c  c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i r methodologies.  For i n s t a n c e , two  critics  as o p p o s i t e t o each other as Northrop  Frye and  B a l i b a r — t h e former i s i n the t r a d i t i o n of New whereas the  Etienne Criticism  l a t t e r i s i n the t r a d i t i o n of M a r x i s m — a g r e e  on  the same p r i n c i p l e , t h a t of the p o s s i b i l i t y of a s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m . For Frye, . . . c r i t i c i s m cannot be a s y s t e m a t i c study u n l e s s t h e r e i s a q u a l i t y of l i t e r a t u r e which enables i t t o be so. We have t o adopt the h y p o t h e s i s then, t h a t , j u s t as t h e r e i s an order of nature behind the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s , so l i t e r a t u r e i s not an aggregate of "works" but an order of words. (Anatomy of C r i t i c i s m 17) Whereas f o r B a l i b a r , . . . l i t e r a r y p r o d u c t i o n i s r i g h t f u l l y an o b j e c t of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, j u s t as any o t h e r o b j e c t i v e phenomenon. Which does not mean t h a t i t does not have i t s own s p e c i f i c i t y . On the c o n t r a r y , i t means t h a t the t e x t w i l l become t r u l y s c i e n t i f i c , or t h a t we w i l l have a b e t t e r s c i e n t i f i c knowledge of i t t o the extent t h a t i t s s p e c i f i c i t y becomes c l e a r e r . (P. Macherey and E . B a l i b a r , "Interview" 50)  Both Frye and B a l i b a r defend thought  s c i e n t i f i c i t y as the mode of  t h a t l e a d s c r i t i c a l method and l i t e r a r y meaning i n t o  the realm o f " o b j e c t i v i t y , " " p r e c i s i o n , " and knowledge." T h i s p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards  "scientific  critical  a b s t r a c t i o n and systems marks, a c c o r d i n g t o Howard F e l p e r i n , the t h i r d and l a t e s t stage of the development of  critical  theory: a f t e r the " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " and the "hermeneutic or i n t e r p r e t i v e " stage came the " t h e o r e t i c a l " o r  " p s e u d o - s c i e n t i f i c " stage (Beyond D e c o n s t r u c t i o n 25-26). Commenting on t h e p e c u l i a r i t y o f t h i s l a s t stage,  Felperin  argues: A new demand f o r s c i e n t i f i c o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l r i g o u r , whether t o be sought i n s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s , marxist h i s t o r i c i s m , or phenomenological c r i t i q u e , as a c o n t r o l upon t h e s u b j e c t i v i t y and ideology t h a t had u n w i t t i n g l y v i t i a t e d our t o o f a m i l i a r h a b i t s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , entered t h e d i s c o u r s e [ o f c r i t i c i s m ] . L i t e r a r y s t u d i e s entered upon i t s t h e o r e t i c a l phase. (2 6) However, t h e agreement between Frye and B a l i b a r , as w e l l as among t h e v a r i o u s  critical  s c h o o l s mentioned  earlier,  on t h e p r i n c i p l e o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y does not imply t h e i r adoption o f t h e same t o o l s o f a n a l y s i s and t h e i r coming t o the same f i n d i n g s about l i t e r a t u r e . Yet, both Frye and B a l i b a r t y p i f y a common consensus w i t h i n t h e " p r o - s c i e n t i f i c " mode o f thought i n c r i t i c i s m . W i t h i n t h i s t r e n d , " s u b j e c t i v i t y , " " i n t u i t i o n , " and " i n d i v i d u a l genius" as Wellek has termed them are pushed t o t h e margins i n f a v o r o f a more "precise," literary  "systematic,  11  "rigorous,"  and " o b j e c t i v e " approach t o t h e  text.  These c r i t e r i a i n p a r t i c u l a r have been c a p t u r e d w i t h s t r i k i n g c l a r i t y by Benjamin Hrushovsky, an exponent o f Poetics  as s c i e n c e .  d i s t i n c t i o n between  He r e f i n e s Wellek and Warren's o l d " c r i t i c i s m , " " l i t e r a r y t h e o r y , " and  " h i s t o r y " i n t h e i r c l a s s i c A Theory o f L i t e r a t u r e  (1946; r e p t .  1963); but u n l i k e them, Hrushovsky b e l i e v e s i n the of e s t a b l i s h i n g a s c i e n c e of  possibility  criticism:  I t i s . . . only p o e t i c s which can p r o v i d e a s y s t e m a t i c d e s c r i p t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e as a whole, can embody w i t h i n one system the s c i e n t i f i c assessment of i t s p a r t s and heterogeneous phenomena, and can p r o v i d e the r a t i o n a l t o o l s and methods f o r the study of s p e c i f i c i s s u e s and t e x t s . Whereas i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are v a l u a b l e t o readers i n t e r e s t e d i n p a r t i c u l a r works of l i t e r a t u r e ; c r i t i c i s m and h i s t o r y t e l l us about p a r t i c u l a r writers, periods, national l i t e r a t u r e s ; i t i s p r i m a r i l y p o e t i c s which i l l u m i n a t e s l i t e r a t u r e as a p e c u l i a r phenomenon of human c u l t u r e . I t i s o n l y through p o e t i c s t h a t we can e x p l a i n t o our c o l l e a g u e s i n other s c i e n c e s what l i t e r a t u r e r e a l l y i s and how i t i s , and what i t i s the nature of l i t e r a r y movements, the f u n c t i o n i n g of language and v a l u e s i n l i t e r a t u r e . ("Poetics, C r i t i c i s m , Science," x x i i i ) T h i s p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n i t i o n of p o e t i c s as a s c i e n c e l i t e r a t u r e has  a p l u r a l i s t i c and  of  i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y face,  i d e a which has been p a r t of the argument put  forward by  an the  p r o - s c i e n t i f i c i t y c r i t i c s . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n a l s o aims t o t o t a l i z e methodology which, "through the q u e s t i o n s s c i e n t i f i c order w i l l c l a r i f y  of a  . . . the i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n  understanding l i t e r t u r e , the connections between l i t e r a t u r e and  other  f i e l d s of human knowledge"  Here, we  (xxxiii).  witness a double move i n the d e f i n i t i o n  s c i e n t i f i c i t y . On the one  hand, i t r e s u l t s from  a p p l i c a t i o n of a s e t of c r i t e r i a t o the t e x t qua s p e c i f i c i t y as a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f words.  of  the text in i t s  Therefore,  12 s c i e n t i f i c i t y marks an i n t r i n s i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the t e x t ' s l i t e r a r i n e s s , thus r e v e a l i n g some f o r m a l i s t concerns. o t h e r hand, i t marks a move outwards, of  On the  towards a m u l t i p l i c i t y  d i s c i p l i n e s i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e f o r the e x t r i n s i c  dimensions o f l i t e r a t u r e .  I t s concern here i s s o c i o l o g i c a l  and h i s t o r i c a l . Through both moves, the n o t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y c a l l s f o r a t o t a l i z i n g apprehension of the l i t e r a r y t e x t . One notes Hrushovsky's and Warren's t r a d i t i o n a l  f a i t h f u l n e s s t o Wellek  d i s t i n c t i o n between " i n t r i n s i c "  and  " e x t r i n s i c " modes of l i t e r a r y a n a l y s i s and which have been r e f o r m u l a t e d by Tzvetan Todorov as "endogenesis" "exogenesis" of  ("On  scientificity  and  L i t e r a r y Genesis" 218). Moreover,  the n o t i o n  here comes c l o s e s t t o the i d e a o f p l u r a l i s m ,  thus e x p r e s s i n g a l i b e r a l view o f the f u n c t i o n of c r i t i c i s m .  In  t h i s c o n t e x t o f s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y , the  critic  becomes d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the w r i t e r - a r t i s t i n the sense t h a t the  former d e a l s w i t h a s p e c i a l m a t e r i a l which he supposedly  can handle i n a " s c i e n t i f i c " manner.  For the c r i t i c d e a l s i n  e x p l a n a t i o n , a n a l y s i s , as w e l l as a b s t r a c t t h e o r i e s and The c r i t i c , as d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the c r e a t i v e a r t i s t , the performer, and the audience, i s c r u c i a l l y concerned w i t h e x p l a n a t i o n . In t h i s r e s p e c t he i s a k i n t o the s c i e n t i s t — a n d t o the h u m a n i s t - t h e o r i s t as w e l l . ... The c r i t i c , then, o c c u p i e s a middle s t a t e — b e t w e e n the s c i e n t i s t and the c r e a t i v e a r t i s t . L i k e the s c i e n t i s t , he s t r i v e s not o n l y t a c i t l y t o understand, but e x p l i c i t l y t o e x p l a i n . L i k e the a r t i s t , what he does depends upon acute  rules:  13 comprehension and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g t a s t e which are the products of extended and v a r i e d , y e t t r e n c h a n t , experience. (Meyer, "Concerning the Sciences, the A r t s — A N D the Humanities" 197; 2 02) In a c q u i r i n g a s c i e n t i f i c o b j e c t i v e , the c r i t i c t o the s i d e of the s c i e n t i s t and  h i s need t o  i s thus drawn  explain  r a t i o n a l l y r a t h e r than t o t h a t of the a r t i s t and on i m a g i n a t i o n . they are t h e r e  his reliance  Whatever a e s t h e t i c t o o l s the c r i t i c  possesses,  only t o complement the s c i e n t i f i c "know-how"  through which the t e x t i s approached.  The  o t h e r s i d e of t h i s i d e n t i t y t h a t c r i t i c i s m  has  acquired,  the a n t i - s c i e n t i f i c or " i n t u i t i v e , " as Wellek  perceives  i t , s i g n a l s a much o l d e r t r a d i t i o n , whose r o o t s  p a r t l y steeped i n Romanticism Modern S c i e n c e "  15).  (see E i c h e n e r , "The  Rise  are  of  T h i s c r i t i c a l dimension remains a k i n d  r e s i s t a n c e t o such a t h e o r e t i c a l and  pro-scientific  of  project  w i t h i n the domain of l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s . As K a r l Kroeber p o i n t s out,  "increasing imitativeness  of the  'scientific'  has  accompanied, i n t e r e s t i n g l y , ever more s t r i d e n t p r o c l a m a t i o n s of the  ' c r e a t i v i t y ' of c r i t i c i s m "  Study, 1883-1983"  329).  ("The  E v o l u t i o n of L i t e r a r y  T r a d i t i o n a l i s t c r i t i c s have  objected  vehemently t o the attempts t o t h e o r i z e about l i t e r a t u r e i n an a b s t r a c t manner and  t o look a t l i t e r a r y t e x t s as i f they were  i n e r t "lumps," handy f o r " o b j e c t i v e " s c i e n t i f i c and  experiment  (see R i c h a r d  Rorty, "Texts and  Ruth Anna Putnam, "Poets, S c i e n t i s t s , and  observation  Lumps" 1-16;  Critics"  17-22).  and  14 Edward S a i d ,  though he cannot be ranked  traditionalists, "scientific  argues along  145).  These c r i t i c s  turning of  criticism  scientific  clear  s i m i l a r l i n e s and r e j e c t s t h e  . . . functionalism"  Structuralist—criticism  among t h e  of  (The W o r l d ,  contemporary—especially the Text,  and t h e C r i t i c  have demonstrated t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f  into a science  analysis.  and l i t e r a t u r e  i n t o an  object  They have c a l l e d f o r a need t o keep  demarcation between a r t and  a  science:  We n e e d t o r e m i n d o u r s e l v e s t h a t a r t a n d s c i e n c e are very d i f f e r e n t e n t e r p r i s e s , aiming a t d i f f e r e n t kinds o f r e s u l t s . I f both a r t and s c i e n c e a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , w h i c h i s t r u e , we m u s t a t some s t a g e t r y t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e m , f o r f e a r t h a t we c o l l a p s e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n a l t o g e t h e r , and a r r i v e a t absurd conclusions . . . [W]e m i g h t s t i l l w i s h t o affirm the obiective nature of s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s against t h e s u b j e c t i v e , even individual, interpretations involved i n aesthetic judgements. (Winterbourne, " O b j e c t i v i t y i n Science and A e s t h e t i c s " 258)  While  there  critics  i s a strong  t o represent  epistemological  temptation  scientific  value  that  "both a r t and science  meaning as  equals that  t o keep a c l e a r demarcation  s t i l l  favouring  voices  proclaimed  difference  which  1  concern  traditional  possessing  of literary  knowledge,  i s true," the  between t h e two, b u t Winterbourne  here  remains o b l i v i o u s t o t h e  between a r t and i t s c r i t i c i s m  by Meyer e a r l i e r  Winterbourne s  line  i s much s t r o n g e r .  a common o p i n i o n  necessary  of  are i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , which  drive  art,  on t h e s i d e  as  ("Concerning t h e Sciences"  i s with  the opposition  202).  between a r t and  15 science and  rather  even gone t o that  reside  abstract the  common g r o u n d  death  the  extent  i n the  of  pursuit  criticism  s h a r e d by  from  any  Wellek himself  Graff, part,  "Who  Killed  corroborates  "a  criticism  Addressing  critical that  se.  to  and  concludes that  Pseudo-Science" Criticism?" the  the  particular,  83;  The  World,  claims Said  having  of  the  Text  and  further  or  to  to  an  human  happily or  See  would  that  exempt  logic"  also  Gerald  Edward S a i d ,  for  the  and  his  purely  become a l i e n a t e d  i t s links  Structuralism  insists  85.  has  lead  criticism":  saying  severed  and  such a p u r s u i t  science  350-515).  same p o i n t ,  from  o n e ' s own,  scientific criticism  (Said,  formalism,  have  dangers  concern would  i s alienated  on  the  scientificity  this pure  critics  some o f  f i n a l e x t i n c t i o n of  "worldliness,"  presence"  of  out  from h i s t o r y , n a t u r a l  "Science,  theoretical own  pointing  becomes p h i l o s o p h i z i n g  checks  (Wellek,  per  anti-scientific  knowledge t h a t  ultimately to  "criticism  of  I t i s argued  form of  experience. lead  a w i d e number o f  theory.  abstract  in  any  science.  Indeed,  its  than with  with  Critic  from  "human 147).  Post-Structuralism  that  [T]he t e m p t a t i o n s of a r i g o r o u s t e c h n i c a l c r i t i c a l vocabulary induce occasional lapses into a s o r t of s c i e n t i s m . R e a d i n g and w r i t i n g become a t s u c h moments i n s t a n c e s o f r e g u l a t e d , systematized production, a s i f t h e human a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d w e r e i r r e l e v a n t . The c l o s e r t h e l i n g u i s t i c f o c u s (say i n t h e c r i t i c i s m o f G r e i m a s and L o t m a n ) , t h e more f o r m a l t h e a p p r o a c h , and t h e more s c i e n t i f i c t h e functionalism. (145)  16 For S a i d , c r i t i c i s m must be " w o r l d l y " i n o r d e r f o r i t s s c i e n t i f i c i t y t o equal o b j e c t i v i t y i n p e r c e p t i o n . I t must not soar i n a b s t r a c t o r s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l c o g i t a t i o n s . As he puts it  so c o g e n t l y ,  " c r i t i c i s m must t h i n k o f i t s e l f as l i f e -  enhancing and c o n s t a n t l y opposed t o every  form o f tyranny,  domination, and abuse; i t s s o c i a l g o a l s a r e noncoercive knowledge produced i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f human freedom" (29). S c i e n t i f i c i t y must have a human s o u l , be " s e c u l a r , " engaqee and committed t o t h e l i b e r a t i o n o f humanity.  In many ways, t h e emergence o f a b e l i e f i n a s c i e n c e of c r i t i c i s m has been made i n e v i t a b l e , o r r a t h e r overdetermined by t h e r i s e o f theory and t h e c o e x i s t e n c e o f d i v e r s e d i s c i p l i n e s i n t h e modern academic context: t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s and t h e humanities have had t o e x i s t s i d e by s i d e a t the u n i v e r s i t y , an arena where competing f o r a t t e n t i o n o r r e c o g n i t i o n as w e l l as b e t t e r funding have been c r u c i a l t o every d i s c i p l i n e ' s s u r v i v a l  (see Lyotard, La C o n d i t i o n  postmoderne 62 and passim).  The p u r s u i t o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n  the domain o f l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m has t h e r e f o r e been p a r t o f the p u r s u i t o f theory. Not u n l i k e theory,  s c i e n t i f i c i t y has  been p e r c e i v e d as t h r e a t e n i n g and as s u b v e r s i v e . Indeed, t h e r e s i s t a n c e o f Leavisism--as chapter—to testimony  w i l l be d e t a i l e d i n t h e next  t h e i d e a o f a s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m i s important  t o t h i s f e a r o f both s c i e n t i f i c i t y and theory.  For  the r e s i s t a n c e t o s c i e n t i f i c i t y goes hand i n hand w i t h t h e  r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e o r y . The  accusations  of h a v i n g brought formalism and  l e v e l l e d against  the  two  self-referential theoretical  a b s t r a c t i o n t o the domain of l i t e r a r y study have t h e i r i d e o l o g i c a l motives. These l i e i n the  own  ideological orientations  of t r a d i t i o n a l i s t approaches which have openly d e c l a r e d p r e f e r e n c e f o r an o l d humanist order t h a t masks an  their  idealist  p h i l o s o p h y of l i t e r a r y essences. Sometimes, as i n the case of Leavis,  s c i e n t i f i c method and  a b s t r a c t t h e o r y are coupled with  technology, which i s viewed as p e r n i c i o u s  t o modern  civilization.  Paul de Man opposition  explains  t h i s complex phenomenon of  t o s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y i n The  the  R e s i s t a n c e t o Theory  (1986). H i s view confirms the d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between opposition  t o t h e o r y and  knowledge. De Man threatening attacks."  r e s i s t a n c e t o a s c i e n t i f i c model of  wonders why  t h e o r y i s seen as  t h a t i t provokes such s t r o n g  In h i s e x p l a n a t i o n ,  resistances  i d e o l o g i e s . He  and  he r e l a t e s t h i s r e s i s t a n c e  t h e o r y ' s " s t a t u s as a s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e " but most i m p o r t a n t l y ,  "so  to  (emphasis added),  because t h e o r y p r e s e n t s a t h r e a t  to  explains:  . . . upsets rooted i d e o l o g i e s by r e v e a l i n g the mechanics of t h e i r workings; i t goes a g a i n s t a powerful p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n of which a e s t h e t i c s i s a prominent p a r t ; i t upsets the e s t a b l i s h e d canon of l i t e r a r y works and b l u r s the b o r d e r l i n e s between l i t e r a r y and n o n - l i t e r a r y d i s c o u r s e . (The R e s i s t a n c e t o Theory 11-12)  In a l l i a n c e w i t h theory, a subversive  s c i e n t i f i c i t y has t h e r e f o r e  acquired  o r r a t h e r r e v o l u t i o n a r y power t h a t can subvert  i d e o l o g i e s and r e v e a l the t r u t h o f d i s c o u r s e ,  which l i e s i n  i t s "mechanics" and "workings." I t a l s o f u n c t i o n s i n opposition to "ideology," deceitful,  understood here as a k i n d o f  false discourse;  a negation o f s c i e n t i f i c  knowledge. We a r e here c l o s e t o an A l t h u s s e r i a n S t r u c t u r a l i s t - M a r x i s t o p p o s i t i o n between " s c i e n c e " and "ideology"  i n which s c i e n t i f i c method i n t h e humanities i s  presented i n h i g h l y t h e o r e t i c a l terms (see Chap. VI below). But  f o r de Man, theory  has a s p e c i a l meaning; i t i s anchored  particularly in a linguistic,  p h i l o l o g i c a l and S t r u c t u r a l i s t  model. By i m p l i c a t i o n , s c i e n t i f i c i t y must f o l l o w t h e same route  i n order t o d e f i n e i t s e l f as t h e o r e t i c a l , capable o f  "uproot[ing]  ideologies."  As de Man argues elsewhere, "the r e t u r n t o theory occurred  as a r e t u r n t o p h i l o l o g y , t o an examination o f t h e  s t r u c t u r e o f language p r i o r t o the meaning i t produces. T h i s i s so even among the most c o n t r o v e r s i a l French t h e o r e t i c i a n s " ("The  Return o f P h i l o l o g y " 1355); hence h i s p r i v i l e g i n g o f  grammar as c e n t r a l t o any v i a b l e i n t e r p r e t i v e p r a c t i c e . T h i s i s why, he a s s e r t s , any r e s i s t a n c e t o theory i m p l i c a t i o n , t o s c i e n t i f i c i t y should language f i r s t . A c c o r d i n g  t o de Man,  and, by  address t h e nature o f  19 . . .as long as i t i s grounded i n grammar, any t h e o r y o f language, i n c l u d i n g a l i t e r a r y one, does not t h r e a t e n what we h o l d t o be t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e o f a l l c o g n i t i v e and a e s t h e t i c l i n g u i s t i c systems. Grammar stands i n t h e s e r v i c e of l o g i c which, i n t u r n , a l l o w s f o r t h e passage t o the knowledge o f the world. The study o f grammar . . . i s t h e necessary p r e - c o n d i t i o n f o r s c i e n t i f i c and humanistic knowledge. (The R e s i s t a n c e t o Theory 14-15; emphasis added) Thus, through  the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the r u l e s o f grammar t o the  study o f language s c i e n t i f i c i t y , a f t e r theory, c o u l d mediate knowledge. Moreover, grammar b r i d g e s the gap t h a t  separates  such d i v e r s e d i s c i p l i n e s as theory and mathematics. The s c i e n t i f i c knowledge t h a t theory y i e l d s i s f u r t h e r confirmed by such a rapprochement among d i s c i p l i n e s ,  traditionally  p e r c e i v e d as o p p o s i t e s . De Man e x p l a i n s f u r t h e r : [The] a r t i c u l a t i o n o f the s c i e n c e s o f language w i t h t h e mathematical s c i e n c e s r e p r e s e n t s a p a r t i c u l a r l y compelling v e r s i o n of a c o n t i n u i t y between a theory o f language, as l o g i c , and knowledge o f the phenomenal world t o which mathematics g i v e s a c c e s s . (14) The most important  c o n c l u s i o n one draws from de Man's  defence  of t h e o r y i s r e v e a l i n g about the s t a t u s o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y . As p a r t o f theory, s c i e n t i f i c i t y b r i d g e s the gap between s c i e n t i f i c and humanistic d i s c i p l i n e s and b r i n g s  "scientific  and humanistic knowledge" under the same umbrella o f interdisciplinarity. But s i n c e de M a n — l i k e  Ransom, R i c h a r d s ,  Frye,  Hrushovsky, B a l i b a r , Meyer, and a l l those l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s who  20 have sought the t r a n s p l a n t a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n t o  their  f i e l d of s t u d y — w a s not a mathematician, a p h y s i c i s t , or a b i o l o g i s t , h i s lumping s c i e n c e and c r i t i c a l theory  together  needs f u r t h e r support. T h i s must come from pure s c i e n t i s t s themselves,  f o r h a r d l y anybody would b e l i e v e a  literary  c r i t i c ' s h y p o t h e s i s t h a t words f u n c t i o n l i k e atoms or  like  p a r t i c l e s of l i g h t i n an E i n s t e i n i a n system. For i f t h e r e were a p h y s i c i s t t o c o n f i r m such a h y p o t h e s i s and thereby  lend  support t o the c r i t i c ' s h y p o t h e s i s , then the q u e s t i o n of scientificity  i n l i t e r a r y theory would l o g i c a l l y be  less  troublesome.  Indeed, by l a u n c h i n g i t s e l f  i n t o such  an  e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l venture, which i s t h a t of the p u r s u i t of s c i e n t i f i c i t y e i t h e r i n emulation  of the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s or  i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e i r methodologies,  c r i t i c i s m seems t o have  taken up a complex t a s k . Yet, such a venture seems t o have turned out t o be a mixed b l e s s i n g . Though t h i s s i t u a t i o n m u l t i p l i e d c r i t i c i s m ' s problems and rendered  i t s interpretive  t a s k more complex, i t helped i n the sharpening t h e o r e t i c a l concepts  and  In f a c t , i t was  has  of i t s  tools.  i n response  t o the l a t e r developments  of the h i s t o r y and p h i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e t h a t the n o t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n c r i t i c i s m underwent some of i t s most r a d i c a l metamorphoses. These modern developments helped narrow the  gap  s e p a r a t i n g the two c r i t i c i s m was  s i d e s of the argument t h a t  literary  t r y i n g so hard t o r e c o n c i l e . A s s i s t a n c e came  from the s c i e n t i s t s themselves. Now,  many s c i e n t i s t s  perceived  the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s and the humanities as b e i n g c l o s e t o each other r a t h e r than i n sharp c o n f l i c t . As Stephen Toulmin, a physicist, states: I t i s a p i t y then f o r s c h o l a r s working i n the humanities t o continue shaping t h e i r c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and t h e o r i e s by r e l y i n g on a c o n t r a s t w i t h a modern s c i e n c e t h a t — a m o n g s c i e n t i s t s t h e m s e l v e s — n o longer even seems t o e x i s t . . . . Instead, we should ask s c h o l a r s t o pay more a t t e n t i o n t o the elements of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n — e v e n of h e r m e n e u t i c s — t h a t have become e s s e n t i a l t o both the n a t u r a l and human s c i e n c e s and t o base t h e i r comparisons between the s c i e n c e s and the humanities not on the assumed absence of hermeneutic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n from n a t u r a l s c i e n c e but r a t h e r on the d i f f e r e n t modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the two g e n e r a l f i e l d s . ("The C o n s t r u a l of R e a l i t y : C r i t i c i s m i n Modern and Postmodern S c i e n c e " 101) Such a r a d i c a l move t o b r i n g s c i e n c e c l o s e r t o the humanities,  and c r i t i c i s m i n p a r t i c u l a r , knew many c o n v e r t s  among s c i e n t i s t s , namely K a r l Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos,  Paul Feyerabend, M i c h e l S e r r e s , and R i c h a r d  Lewontin,  t o name j u s t a few of those whose ideas are nowadays widely d i s c u s s e d . T h i s move c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as a s i g n of grace c o n f e r r e d upon those c r i t i c s seeking a s c i e n c e of  criticism.  I t i s not o n l y l i t e r a t u r e s p e c i a l i s t s who  calling for  are now  a r e v i s i o n o f the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s of  scientific  d i s c o u r s e but s c i e n t i s t s themselves. To c i t e an example from France,  important  the p h y s i c i s t Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond  has  put forward  a p e n e t r a t i n g c r i t i q u e o f modern s c i e n c e , which he  p e r c e i v e s as having h i s t o r i c a l l y developed toward "une d e f a i t e . " He argues: . . . l a s c i e n c e moderne, depuis son emergence a l a f i n de l a Renaissance, e s t devenue progressivement " l a " science tout court. E l l e a relegue l e s autres formes de connaissance, r a t i o n n e l l e ou non, dans l e passe h i s t o r i q u e ou dans l a marge i n s t i t u t i o n n e l l e . . . . En quatre s i e c l e s , l a s c i e n c e , t e l l e que nous l a connaissons desormais, s ' e s t e r i g e e en modele hegemonique du s a v o i r . . . . Mais l ' h i s t o i r e de ce triomphe e s t a u s s i c e l l e d'une d e f a i t e . Au f u r e t a mesure q u ' e l l e s ' e s t a f f i r m e e comme r e f e r e n c e majeure du d i s c o u r s s o c i a l , l a s c i e n c e a perdu c o n t a c t avec l a c u l t u r e . ( L ' E s p r i t de s e l 87) Accordingly,  i f s c i e n c e i s t o serve i t s most genuine  f u n c t i o n i n s o c i e t y , i t must renew i t s d i a l o g u e  with  c u l t u r e , understood here as " l e s a v o i r ne de l a s e n s i b i l i t e , de l a s u b j e c t i v i t e , l e s a v o i r meme de l a v i e q u i fonde l a c u l t u r e " (87).  S t u d i e s i n the h i s t o r y and p h i l o s o p h y  o f s c i e n c e have  c o n t r i b u t e d a g r e a t d e a l t o t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e concept o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y . A s t r o n g e r rapprochement between t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s and l i t e r a r y theory and  i s confirmed.  Not u n l i k e Toulmin  Levy-Leblond, Raman Selden argues t h a t "the use o f  a n a l y s i s and models i n t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s suggests a much more p o e t i c theory o f s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, and draws a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s between ' s c i e n t i f i c ' and  ' n o n - s c i e n t i f i c ' d i s c i p l i n e s , r a t h e r than the d i f f e r e n c e " ( C r i t i c i s m and O b j e c t i v i t y 35). benefited  C r i t i c a l theory,  consequently,  from t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n order t o pursue f u r t h e r  c o n s o l i d a t i o n of i t s p r o j e c t of s c i e n t i f i c i t y . The  necessity  t o keep a c l e a r l i n e of demarcation between s c i e n c e non-science was  no longer  imperative  bind  i t s meaning t o empiricism  and  other  forced  to  r a t i o n a l i t y as propounded  e a r l i e r by the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s . I t must now new  and  or d e f e n s i b l e . In  words, the metaphor of s c i e n t i f i c i t y i s no l o n g e r  the  account f o r some  t h e o r e t i c a l impasses t h a t have emerged w i t h i n  methodology of the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s  the  themselves.  Indeed, the work of Kuhn, Lakatos, Toulmin, Feyerabend, Lyotard,  and  C a s t o r i a d i s has been p i v o t a l t o r e c e n t  the h i s t o r y of s c i e n t i f i c thought, as w e l l as t o  studies in  the  s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of l i t e r a t u r e . T h i s work needs t o be s t u d i e d i n depth i n order  f o r us t o understand the  s i g n i f i c a n c e of i t s e f f e c t s on the development of theory  and  critical  on the metaphor o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y i t s e l f .  But  a d e t a i l e d e x p o s i t i o n of the work of these s c i e n t i s t s philosophers  of s c i e n c e  i s beyond the scope of  full  since  and  this  d i s c u s s i o n , I s h a l l l i m i t myself t o a d d r e s s i n g  certain  s p e c i f i c arguments r e l e v a n t t o the q u e s t i o n  scientificity  of  i n the f i e l d of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . T h i s w i l l shed important l i g h t on the r e c e n t metamorphoses of the concept of s c i e n t i f i c i t y , as w e l l as p r o v i d e  f o r a wider t h e o r e t i c a l  framework f o r the study of L e a v i s ' s and Macherey's c r i t i c a l principles.  Thomas Kuhn's work i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  i n i t i a t e d by h i s  t h e o r y o f "paradigm s h i f t s " as developed i n The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s (1962), has brought a powerful c r i t i q u e t o "Normal S c i e n c e , " the modes o f s c i e n t i f i c thought t h a t dominate  a t any one p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d . H i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  the h i s t o r y of the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s p o i n t s out t h a t , i n the end, "normal s c i e n c e " does not d i f f e r v e r y much from any d i s c i p l i n e i n the humanities. Not u n l i k e c r i t i c i s m , f o r i n s t a n c e , "normal s c i e n c e " i s governed by the workings o f "paradigms" o r dominant communities,  t h e o r i e s , the nature o f s c i e n t i f i c  the types o f instruments used i n r e s e a r c h , and by  a h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d " b u i l t - i n mechanism" t h a t checks on "anomalies" i n matters o f knowledge (The S t r u c t u r e 24). Sometimes, because o f the r i g i d i t y o f s c i e n t i f i c r u l e s , i t appears t h a t the c l o s e s t example t o the s t r u c t u r e o f "normal s c i e n c e " i s t h e o l o g y . To s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s p o i n t , Kuhn argues t h a t "the nature o f the e d u c a t i o n a l i n i t i a t i o n "  (165) o f young  s c i e n t i s t s i n t o the mature p r a c t i c e o f s c i e n c e through the r u l e s o f paradigms makes them "committed  t o the same r u l e s and  standards o f s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e " t h a t "seldom evoke disagreement over fundamentals"  (11). Compared t o e d u c a t i o n i n  "music, the g r a p h i c a r t s , and l i t e r a t u r e , " e d u c a t i o n i s "narrow and r i g i d .  overt  scientific  . .probably more so than any  o t h e r except perhaps i n orthodox t h e o l o g y "  (166). To  understand s c i e n c e we must, t h e r e f o r e , understand t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f "paradigms" and t h e i r "communities" f i r s t . Kuhn, t h e term "paradigm" has two meanings:  "it  For  stands f o r the  e n t i r e c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f b e l i e f s , v a l u e s and techniques shared by the members o f a g i v e n community"; a t the same time,  i t  "denotes one s o r t o f element i n t h a t c o n s t e l l a t i o n , the c o n c r e t e p u z z l e - s o l u t i o n s which, employed as models o r examples, can r e p l a c e e x p l i c i t r u l e s as a b a s i s f o r the s o l u t i o n o f t h e remaining p u z z l e s of normal s c i e n c e " While dependent on the f u n c t i o n i n g o f a s c i e n t i f i c  (175).  community,  "paradigms guide r e s e a r c h by d i r e c t modeling as w e l l as through a b s t r a c t e d r u l e s "  (47). Paradigm s h i f t s o r s c i e n t i f i c  r e v o l u t i o n s occur when t h e dominant paradigm can no l o n g e r make room f o r t h e anomalies t h a t a r i s e . When "the p r o f e s s i o n can no l o n g e r evade anomalies t h a t subvert t h e e x i s t i n g t r a d i t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e — t h e n begin the extraordinary i n v e s t i g a t i o n s that lead the profession.  . .to a new s e t o f  commitments, a new b a s i s f o r the p r a c t i c e o f s c i e n c e " ( 6 ) . Furthermore, any r a d i c a l changes t h a t occur a t t h e l e v e l o f the paradigm d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the paradigm's network o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s : "paradigm changes do cause s c i e n t i s t s t o see the world o f t h e i r research-engagement d i f f e r e n t l y " many ways, s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s become c l o s e r t o  (111). In  literary  t h e o r i e s . They a r e both a f f e c t e d by t h e nature o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s and t h e i r s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t s . Indeed,  Kuhn concludes,  " s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, l i k e language, i s  i n t r i n s i c a l l y the common p r o p e r t y of a group or e l s e at a l l .  To understand i t we  s h a l l need t o know the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the groups t h a t c r e a t e and use  nothing  special i t " (210).  Anchored i n community p r a c t i c e s , s c i e n t i f i c i t y must  forsake  i t s t r a d i t i o n a l abode of o b j e c t i v i t y and u n i v e r s a l t r u t h .  A c c o r d i n g l y , the b e l i e f t h a t was by e m p i r i c i s t and  r a t i o n a l i s t p h i l o s o p h i e s such as the Vienna  C i r c l e e a r l y i n t h i s century s c i e n c e , i t s cumulative  i n the o n t o l o g i c a l development of  "progress"  and the n e u t r a l i t y of i t s  d i s c o u r s e no l o n g e r holds water (206; "The  h e l d f o r a long time  see a l s o Hans E i c h e n e r ,  R i s e of Modern S c i e n c e " 21-2 2) . In the past, t h i s image  of s c i e n t i f i c i t y as a view of the world t h a t i s detached, impersonal,  coherent,  v a l u e - f r e e , and u n i v e r s a l l y t r u e was  in  f a c t o n l y p a r t of the i d e o l o g i c a l requirements f o r the f u n c t i o n i n g o f the dominant paradigms. "Science seldom or never. . .a s i n g l e m o n o l i t h i c and e n t e r p r i s e , " Kuhn adds. f i e l d s together,  i s obviously  unified  On the c o n t r a r y , when "viewing a l l  i t seems i n s t e a d a r a t h e r ramshackle  s t r u c t u r e w i t h l i t t l e coherence among i t s v a r i o u s p a r t s " S t r u c t u r e 49). For i n s t a n c e , Kuhn p o i n t s out, quantum m e c h a n i c s — o r Newtonian dynamics, or  (The  "although electromagnetic  t h e o r y — i s a paradigm f o r many s c i e n t i f i c groups, i t i s not the same paradigm f o r them a l l " claimed  (50). C l e a r l y , the consensus  among s c i e n t i s t s o f t e n masks v a r i o u s d i v e r g e n c e s  among  27 the d i f f e r e n t communities of s c i e n t i s t s as w e l l as  within  t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l s p e c i a l t i e s . These divergences are  often  smothered i n order t o a l l o w the t r a d i t i o n of the paradigm t o continue.  Moreover, s i n c e both "normal s c i e n c e and  are community-based a c t i v i t i e s "  revolutions  (179), the c l a i m t o  the  n e u t r a l i t y of a s c i e n t i f i c language becomes a mere i d e o l o g i c a l statement:  "as  f o r a pure observation-language, perhaps  w i l l y e t be d e v i s e d "  (126). In the end,  " s c i e n c e does not  i n a l l p o s s i b l e l a b o r a t o r y m a n i p u l a t i o n s . Instead,  immediate experience t h a t t h a t paradigm has  deal  i t selects  those r e l e v a n t t o the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of a paradigm w i t h  determined"  one  the  partially  (12 6) .  Toulmin, f o r h i s p a r t , c o r r o b o r a t e s p a r t i c u l a r by arguing  t h i s point i n  that " s c i e n t i f i c discoveries  are  t y p i c a l l y a r r i v e d a t not by g e n e r a l i z i n g from p r e e x i s t i n g f a c t s but by p r o v i d i n g answers t o p r e e x i s t i n g (Toulmin, "The  Construal  of R e a l i t y " 101).  questions"  What i s  p r o b l e m a t i z e d here by both Kuhn and Toulmin, b e s i d e s science,"  "normal  i s the s t a t u s of the s c i e n t i f i c " f a c t " i t s e l f .  " f a c t , " as an o b j e c t of s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i s no a passive  The longer  o n t o l o g i c a l e n t i t y t h a t e x i s t s independently of  methods t h a t seek t o a p p r o p r i a t e  i t ; i t i s r a t h e r the  the  object  of a method. I t responds d i r e c t l y t o t h a t method i n i t s p r o c e s s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In t h i s context t o modern p h y s i c s , Toulmin m a i n t a i n s :  and w i t h  reference  28  The Newtonian c h o i c e f o r p a s s i v e over a c t i v e matter seems. . .to have turned as much on i s s u e s of s o c i a l imagery—God b e i n g seen t o " i n s p i r e " matter and c o n f e r motion on i t , j u s t as the k i n g was seen t o be the f i n a l source of p o l i t i c a l a g e n c y — a s i t d i d on genuine matters of s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and e x p l a n a t i o n . (108) The e n d - r e s u l t of t h i s p r o b l e m a t i z a t i o n of the o n t o l o g i c a l s t a t u s of the s c i e n t i f i c " f a c t " has l e d i n t u r n t o the q u e s t i o n i n g of the nature of o b j e c t i v i t y as w e l l .  The n o t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c o b j e c t i v i t y which has been p i v o t a l t o those c r i t i c a l approaches  aiming a t an  approximation of s c i e n t i f i c r i g o u r has thus been p r o b l e m a t i z e d by the Kuhnian  theory of paradigms,  stand as a y a r d s t i c k f o r measuring  and hence can no l o n g e r the v a l i d i t y o f the  e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s of c r i t i c a l d i s c o u r s e . C r i t i c i s m would be wrong t o expect the hard s c i e n c e s t o p r o v i d e l i t e r a r y methods and t h e i r c r i t e r i a of judgement w i t h an exact s c i e n t i f i c model t o emulate  (see Selden, C r i t i c i s m  O b j e c t i v i t y 40). S c i e n t i f i c o b j e c t i v i t y now  and  bears a  s e l f - c o n s c i o u s c r i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r , a mechanism t h a t a l l o w s i t t o s c r u t i n i z e i t s method of a n a l y s i s from a l l p o s s i b l e a n g l e s . S i n c e the disappearance of the t r a d i t i o n a l l y  priviledged  Archimedian vantage p o i n t — o f n a i v e r e a l i s m — i t  seems t h a t a  r e l a t i v i s t i c view has s l i p p e d from the humanities i n t o the f i e l d of "normal  s c i e n c e , " thereby p r o b l e m a t i z i n g the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t h i n k i n g s u b j e c t s c i e n t i s t / c r i t i c ) and f a c t / t e x t ) . But "anything  the t h e o r i z e d o b j e c t  (the (the  scientific  as Kuhn i n s i s t s , t h i s does not mean t h a t  goes" or t h a t the s c i e n t i f i c method should  some k i n d of b l i n d s u b j e c t i v i s m  (Kuhn, The  fall  Structure  into  191).  Toulmin puts i t so s u c c i n c t l y , " i n the p h y s i c a l  sciences,  o b j e c t i v i t y can now  i t i s i n the  be achieved  o n l y i n the way  human s c i e n c e s : the s c i e n t i s t must acknowledge and h i s own  r e a c t i o n s t o and  understand"  Construal  By a k i n d of t o u r de f o r c e , we imagination  t r a d i t i o n a l i s t c r i t i c s and Wellek c o n s i d e r e d  discount  i n f l u e n c e on t h a t which he seeks t o  (Toulmin, "The  defence of i n t u i t i o n and  As  of R e a l i t y "  103).  witness the r e t u r n t o a i n science—something  the Romantics propounded, and  t o be u n j u s t l y excluded by  which  scientific  c r i t i c i s m . Toulmin goes on t o argue,  In s c i e n c e s and humanities a l i k e , we must be prepared t o c o n s i d e r the p r o d u c t s of human i m a g i n a t i o n and c r e a t i o n — w h e t h e r ideas or a r t i f a c t s , poems or t h e o r i e s — f r o m a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s of view, some of them i n t e r n a l t o the immediate content and p r o f e s s i o n a l g o a l , o t h e r s r e f l e c t i n g more the i n f l u e n c e o f e x t e r n a l factors. (110) Accordingly, one  the system t h a t i s deemed most s c i e n t i f i c i s the  t h a t seems t o be h i g h l y s e l f - r e f l e x i v e , capable of  self-  c r i t i c i s m , and  c o n s c i o u s of the mechanisms—both i n t e n a l and  external—that  determine i t s l e g i t i m i z a t i o n and  functioning.  30 T h i s i s one o f t h e many f a c e t s o f postmodern s c i e n c e , which Jean-Fancois L y o t a r d d e f i n e s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g terms:  En s i n t e r e s s a n t aux i n d e c i d a b l e s , aux l i m i t e s de l a p r e c i s i o n du c o n t r o l e , aux quanta, aux c o n f l i t s a i n f o r m a t i o n non complete, aux " f r a c t a " , aux c a t a s t r o p h e s , aux paradoxes pragmatiques, l a s c i e n c e postmoderne f a i t l a t h e o r i e de s a propre e v o l u t i o n comme d i s c o n t i n u e , c a t a s t r o p h i q u e , non r e c t i f i a b l e , paradoxale. E l l e change l e sens du mot s a v o i r , e t e l l e d i t comment ce changement peut a v o i r l i e u . E l l e p r o d u i t non pas du connu, mais de l ' i n c o n n u . E t e l l e suggere un modele de l e g i t i m a t i o n q u i n'est nullement c e l u i de l a m e i l l e u r e performance, mais c e l u i de l a d i f f e r e n c e comprise comme p a r a l o g i e . (La C o n d i t i o n Postmoderne 97) 1  The  new s c i e n c e i s now p o r t r a y e d  as a system capable o f  embracing a l l p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s even when they a r e i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n with each other.  I t does n o t l i v e on t h e  e x c l u s i o n o f o p p o s i t e d i s c o u r s e s , but r a t h e r makes room f o r a l l t h e p a r a d o x i c a l ones t h a t come i t s way.  Thus, Kuhn's, T o u l m i n s , and Lyotard*s 1  r e f l e c t i o n s on  the development as w e l l as t h e e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s o f s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o u r s e have narrowed t h e gap s e p a r a t i n g t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s from t h e humanities. The a l t e r n a t i v e s they o f f e r widen t h e scope o f t h e metaphor o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y so as t o embrace even those t h e o r e t i c a l concepts t h a t were branded i n t h e p a s t as  "un-scientific.  1 1  As a s o l u t i o n t o t h e c o n f l i c t  t h a t has p i t t e d both d i s c i p l i n e s a g a i n s t each o t h e r f o r  c e n t u r i e s , Kuhn c a l l s f o r a comparative community s t r u c t u r e of s c i e n c e " and  study between "the  "the  communities i n other f i e l d s . " Toulmin,  corresponding  for his part,  t h a t the aims of c o n f l i c t i n g d i s c i p l i n e s should be whereas L y o t a r d proposes alternative.  suggests  unified,  "un systeme ouvert" as the best  For Kuhn, the comparative  p r o j e c t he  offers  should begin by a d d r e s s i n g the f o l l o w i n g key q u e s t i o n s : How does one e l e c t and how i s one e l e c t e d t o membership i n a p a r t i c u l a r community, s c i e n t i f i c or not? What i s the process and what are the stages of s o c i a l i z a t i o n to the group? What does the group c o l l e c t i v e l y see as i t s g o a l s ; what d e v i a t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l or c o l l e c t i v e , w i l l i t t o l e r a t e ; and how does i t c o n t r o l the i m p e r m i s s i b l e a b e r r a t i o n ? (Kuhn, The S t r u c t u r e 209) Not u n l i k e Kuhn, Toulmin  suggests t h a t methodological  concerns  i n both d i s c i p l i n e s should a t t e n d t o the same g o a l : r c i r i t i c a l judgement i n the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s . . . i s not g e o m e t r i c a l , and c r i t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the humanities i s not whimsical. In both spheres, the proper aims should be the s a m e — t h a t i s , t o be p e r c e p t i v e , i l l u m i n a t i n g , and reasonable. (Toulmin, "The C o n s t r u a l of R e a l i t y " 117; author's emphasis) Indeed, the a l t e r n a t i v e Kuhn and Toulmin  o f f e r t o a hegemonic  "Normal Science" i s t h a t of a h i g h l y conscious  theoretical  system capable of a n a l y z i n g the workings of i t s own  method  while a n a l y z i n g i t s o b j e c t and f o r m u l a t i n g i t s r u l e s . The  call  i s then f o r a s c i e n c e t h a t i s not d i s t o r t e d by any m o n o l i t h i c  r h e t o r i c o f power t h a t h i d e s i d e o l o g i e s o f e x c l u s i o n . I t i s , i n L y o t a r d ' s terms, a "pragmatic  open system":  Pour autant q u ' e l l e e s t d i f f e r e n c i a n t e , l a s c i e n c e dans sa pragmatique o f f r e l ' a n t i m o d e l e du systeme s t a b l e . Tout enonce e s t a r e t e n i r du moment q u ' i l comporte de l a d i f f e r e n c e avec ce q u i e s t su, e t q u ' i l e s t argumentable e t prouvable. E l l e e s t un modele de "systeme o u v e r t " dans l e q u e l l a p e r t i n e n c e de 1'enonce e s t q u ' i l "donne n a i s s a n c e a des i d e e s " , c ' e s t - a - d i r e a d'autres enonces e t a d'autres r e g i e s de j e u . I I n'y a pas dans l a s c i e n c e une metalangue generale dans l a q u e l l e t o u t e s l e s a u t r e s peuvent e t r e t r a n s c r i t e s e t evaluees. C'est ce q u i i n t e r d i t 1 ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n au systeme e t , t o u t compte f a i t , l a t e r r e u r . (Lyotard, La C o n d i t i o n 103-4)  In t h e l i g h t o f such an argument, t h e concept o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y has a c q u i r e d a wider s i g n i f i c a n c e which c o u l d be summed up i n a s i n g l e Kuhnian key-term:  "incommensurability."  I t i s t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t g r a n t s t h e concept a sense o f e l a s t i c i t y when a p p l i e d t o e i t h e r " s c i e n c e " o r "non-science." But most i m p o r t a n t l y , through t h i s c r i t i q u e o f "normal s c i e n c e , " t h e concept o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y has moved i n t o t h e t e r r a i n o f i d e o l o g y . A d i s c o u r s e t h a t i s marked  "Scientific"  can no l o n g e r pass through t h e gates o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n unchecked. A f t e r b e i n g p e r c e i v e d as t h e n e g a t i o n o f i d e o l o g y , s c i e n t i f i c i t y now seems t o have c o l l i d e d w i t h i t . concepts and  Both  t h e i r r a m i f i c a t i o n s must now i n h a b i t human  d i s c o u r s e , be i t " s c i e n t i f i c " o r " n o n - s c i e n t i f i c . "  33 Why  L e a v i s and Macherey? On the one hand, both  exemplify—although  critics  from o p p o s i t e a n g l e s — a c o n t i n u a l s t r u g g l e  w i t h the q u e s t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n the domain of c r i t i c i s m . On the o t h e r hand, they both mark two  literary  crucial  moments i n the development of c r i t i c a l t h e o r y : L e a v i s witnessed and c o l l a b o r a t e d i n the g e n e s i s of c r i t i c i s m as a d i s t i n c t u n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n e a t Cambridge immediately the F i r s t World War,  after  whereas Macherey mediates some of the  major p r i n c i p l e s of the " t h e o r e t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n " of the 1960s i n France, and l a t e r i n England  and North  late  America.  Moreover, thanks t o L e a v i s and Macherey, s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s has undergone i t s major metamorphoses. In the meantime, both c r i t i c s p r o b l e m a t i z e the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s of t h e o r y as s c i e n c e , of l i t e r a t u r e as a v i a b l e  institution,  and of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as a p o l i t i c a l a c t .  T h e r e f o r e , i t w i l l be necessary t o l o o k a t L e a v i s ' s and Macherey's c r i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n d e t a i l i n o r d e r t o see  how  the i d e a of a s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m has been addressed by  two  opposing c r i t i c s who  not o n l y d i s a g r e e on the r o l e of t h e o r y  and the nature of the l i t e r a r y t e x t , but a l s o belong t o  two  d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s and l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n s : the E n g l i s h c r i t i c i s marked by an e m p i r i c a l t r a d i t i o n t h a t i s "deeply r o o t e d i n the s o i l , " whereas the o t h e r belongs t o a French t h a t has been h i s t o r i c a l l y marked by abstraction. Leavis s t i l l  tradition  philosophical  remains an enigma and h i s work  ambiguous d e s p i t e the debates he has aroused i n v a r i o u s l i t e r a r y j o u r n a l s and departments of E n g l i s h throughout world. In c o n t r a s t , Macherey's work s t i l l  the  remains obscure  d e s p i t e the a t t e n t i o n i t has drawn from those  critics  i n t e r e s t e d i n the debates between the S t r u c t u r a l i s t s ,  the  M a r x i s t s , and the D e c o n s t r u c t i v i s t s (see F e l p e r i n , Beyond Deconstruction; Formalism and  Eagleton,  Criticism  and  Ideology;  and  Bennett,  Marxism).  In t h e i r accounting  for literature,  criticism,  and  theory, both L e a v i s and Macherey have f o l l o w e d d i v e r g i n g theoretical fought  and e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l t r a j e c t o r i e s .  The  former  a g a i n s t the n o t i o n of a s c i e n c e of c r i t i c i s m whereas  the l a t t e r supported attempts t o analyze interpretation,  i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . In t h e i r  l i t e r a t u r e and d e f i n e the c r i t e r i a of i t s  they r e v e a l the two  of " s c i e n c e versus  conflicting  s i d e s of Wellek's  polarity  i n t u i t i o n . " A g a i n s t the i d e a of  s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n c r i t i c i s m , L e a v i s proposes such n o t i o n s " i n t u i t i o n , " " s e n s i b i l i t y , " "organic c u l t u r e , " " l i f e , " "human c r e a t i v i t y . "  as  and  In c o n t r a s t , Macherey views s c i e n t i f i c i t y  as the main i d e a l t o be pursued by c r i t i c a l t h e o r y achieve a "knowledge" t h a t d i s p l a c e s i d e o l o g y and  i n order  to  "critical  f a l l a c i e s . " Whereas L e a v i s c a l l s f o r the " u n i t y , " "coherence," and  "homogeneity" of the l i t e r a r y t e x t , Macherey upholds the  n o t i o n s of " c o n t r a d i c t i o n , " "decenteredness, " i d e o l o g y " as necessary  11  "absence,"  elements f o r h i s " r i g o r o u s "  and  and  35 " s c i e n t i f i c " system. However, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between these two  c r i t i c s a r e not always t h a t c l e a r l y marked, f o r t h e i r  t h e o r i z a t i o n o f l i t e r a t u r e — a l t h o u g h L e a v i s would not admit t o any t h e o r y — h a s  l e d them i n t o major t h e o r e t i c a l impasses t h a t  are, i n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s , not t o t a l l y  dissimilar.  Thus, i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e major metamorphoses o f t h e notion of s c i e n t i f i c i t y , it  as developed  i n this f i r s t section,  i s worth c o n s i d e r i n g how L e a v i s and Macherey have conceived  of c r i t i c i s m as a p r i v i l e g e d d i s c i p l i n e .  P a r t Two, which  c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e chapters, d e a l s with L e a v i s ' s p r i n c i p l e s as they develop  critical  towards a c o n f r o n t a t i o n with t h e  question of a s c i e n t i f i c c r i t i c i s m . Leavis grants i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s q u e s t i o n from 1962 onward, t h e year he p u b l i s h e d h i s Richmond l e c t u r e , CP.  "Two C u l t u r e s ? " i n response t o  Snow's Rede l e c t u r e i n which t h e l a t t e r i d e a l i z e s "the  scientific culture."  To understand  and s c i e n t i s m , we need t o address  L e a v i s ' s response t o Snow  the Arnoldian  legacy,  e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e way i t conceived o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c i e n c e , c r i t i c i s m , and l i t e r a t u r e . L e a v i s ' s argument a g a i n s t s c i e n c e f i n d s many o f i t s echoes i n h i s c o n t r o v e r s y  with  Marxism, which he p e r c e i v e s as a l l i e d w i t h d e s t r u c t i v e technology  and n e g a t i v i t y .  P a r t Three, which i s a l s o d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e d e a l s w i t h Macherey's c r i t i c a l  chapters,  system and t h e elements o f h i s  36 "theory  of l i t e r a r y production."  question  of ideology  I t a l s o addresses t h e  i n t h e s c i e n t i f i c model p o s i t e d by  Macherey's A l t h u s s e r i a n paradigm. Here, t h e main focus  i s on  Macherey's concepts o f "absence," t h e "non-dit," and " c o n t r a d i c t i o n " as c o n s t i t u t i v e o f l i t e r a t u r e and c r i t i c a l knowledge. The t h e o r e t i c a l problematic Macherey's theory  t h a t emerges from  i s the d i f f i c u l t y of r e c o n c i l i n g the  " s t r u c t u r e o f absence" w i t h s c i e n t i f i c i t y and i d e o l o g y .  F i n a l l y , Part Four draws a b r i e f comparative assessment of t h e two c r i t i c s ' p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e f e r e n c e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , theory,  scientificity,  t o the status of  and i d e o l o g y .  While drawing on Habermas's c r i t i q u e o f modern s c i e n t i f i c r a t i o n a l i t y , I s h a l l p o i n t out t h e need t o t h e o r i z e from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e  o f t h e theory  of ideology.  criticism  The main idea  argued here i s t h a t t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o o r t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o f the concept o f s c i e n t i f i c i t y marks a c r u c i a l "moment" i n t h e h i s t o r y o f c r i t i c i s m and a t t e s t s t o i t s c o n t i n u a l s t r u g g l e f o r s u r v i v a l both as an academic a c t i v i t y and as a human epistemological  p r a c t i c e . But i n p u r s u i n g  scientificity,  c r i t i c i s m must beware o f f a l l i n g i n t o t h e i d e o l o g y o f l e g i t i m i z a t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r epistemologies  In a d d r e s s i n g  and worldviews.  these t h e o r e t i c a l problems, I s h a l l  f o l l o w an a n a l y t i c approach i n order t o p o i n t out t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s o f p a r t i c u l a r systems o f c l o s u r e ,  37 r a t h e r than p r e t e n d i n g t o o f f e r f i n a l answers t o a l l the questions  raised.  38  PART  F.R.  TWO:  L e a v i s and the Question  of  Science:  C r i t i c a l Knowledge, L i t e r a r y Standards, and  Valuation  39  I. R e v i s i n g the A r n o l d i a n T r a d i t i o n : L e a v i s ' s  Criticism,  S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge, and "Organic C u l t u r e "  L i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m can be no more than a reasoned account of the f e e l i n g produced upon the c r i t i c by the book he i s c r i t i c i z i n g . C r i t i c i s m can never be a s c i e n c e : i t i s , i n the f i r s t p l a c e , much too p e r s o n a l , and i n the second, i t i s concerned w i t h v a l u e s t h a t s c i e n c e i g n o r e s . The touchstone i s emotion, not reason. We judge a work o f a r t by i t s e f f e c t s on our s i n c e r e and v i t a l emotions and n o t h i n g e l s e . A l l the c r i t i c a l twiddle-twaddle about s t y l e and form, a l l t h i s p s e u d o - s c i e n t i f i c c l a s s i f y i n g and a n a l y s i n g o f books i n an i m i t a t i o n - b o t a n i c a l f a s h i o n i s merely impertinence and mostly d u l l jargon, ( c i t e d i n F.R. L e a v i s , V a l u a t i o n i n C r i t i c i s m 245-6)  T h i s Lawrentian statement c o u l d e a s i l y have been u t t e r e d by F.R. a t t i t u d e towards  L e a v i s . Indeed, he o f t e n expressed a s i m i l a r s c i e n c e , as opposed  v a r i o u s stages o f h i s c a r e e r  t o " v i t a l emotions," a t  ( c f . Thought, Words and  C r e a t i v i t y 47; and E d u c a t i o n and the U n i v e r s i t y 116).  The  statement quoted above a l s o marks a c l e a r demarcation between  c r i t i c i s m and science and sums up Leavis's view of the function of c r i t i c i s m ; i t offers a miniature picture of h i s representation of s c i e n t i f i c i t y i n the domain of l i t e r a t u r e . In fact, both Leavis's h o s t i l i t y to s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and his  defence of a c r i t i c a l realm of "emotion" and " s e n s i b i l i t y "  are nowadays taken for granted by the majority of scholars interested i n Leavisite c r i t i c i s m . But what remains a bone of contention among these scholars i s the nature of c r i t i c i s m Leavis o f f e r s . R.P. Bilan, f o r instance, sees Leavis as presenting "one of the most d e f i n i t e and coherent ideas of c r i t i c i s m of the twentieth century" (R.P. Bilan, The L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m of F.R. Leavis  61). S i m i l a r l y , Gary Watson argues  that " i n England today the c r i t i c a l p r a c t i c e of the Leavises represents the only v a l i d c r i t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e " (The Leavises; the " S o c i a l " and the Left; c f . Pradham  "Literary C r i t i c i s m  and Cultural Diagnosis," 3 9 3 ) . John Needham f o r h i s part maintains that Leavis i s "the best of the modern English c r i t i c s because he kept to the central road of c r i t i c i s m , responding as a f u l l human being to l i t e r a t u r e . . ." (The Completest Mode 158).  In opposition to Bilan and Watson,  other l i t e r a r y scholars have objected to Leavis's c r i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s , f o r they perceive them as a n t i - s c i e n t i f i c , and m o r a l i s t i c at heart.  flawed,  Colin MacCabe argues that "the  L e a v i s i t e p o s i t i o n of the mid-sixties (and the essential components were already i n place i n the l a t e f o r t i e s ) retained a narrow focus on l i t e r a t u r e " ("The Cambridge Heritage" 248).  f o r m u l a t i o n s depend wholly on.  . .mistaken hypotheses.  . ."  ( L i t e r a t u r e and Method 203), while Howard F e l p e r i n says t h a t "the L e a v i s i t e p r i v i l e g i n g of i n t u i t i o n over  intellect,  m o r a l i t y over form, e v a l u a t i o n over i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , over consciousness. . .seem. . .fundamentally  conscience  misguided"  ( F e l p e r i n , Beyond D e c o n s t r u c t i o n 16). These readings of L e a v i s ' s work, which are not always  i l l f o u n d e d , base  themselves mainly on h i s assessment  of what he p e r c e i v e s as  the c u l t u r a l and s p i r i t u a l c r i s i s of the t w e n t i e t h century t h a t was  generated by the t e c h n o l o g i c a l  revolution.  Yet, what most of these c r i t i c s merely touch upon i s the c r u c i a l r e l e v a n c e of L e a v i s ' s argument a g a i n s t the " s c i e n t i f i c c u l t u r e " t o h i s f o r m u l a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r critical  approach.  In f a c t , t h i s argument became more engaging  a f t e r h i s c o n f r o n t a t i o n with C P .  Snow i n the e a r l y  sixties.  As a r e s u l t , L e a v i s ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the i n t e r p r e t i v e method i n c r i t i c i s m was  d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by h i s n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e  towards s c i e n c e . The p e c u l i a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y t h a t he o f f e r s ,  seen b a s i c a l l y as a t h r e a t t o l i t e r a r y v a l u e s ,  seems t o have f o r c e d h i m — p e r h a p s u n a w a r e s — t o t h e o r i z e h i s c r i t i c a l principles,  something  he openly opposed i n the  exchanges he had with Wellek, Bateson,  and Tanner. As he o f t e n  argued, c r i t i c i s m and a b s t r a c t theory were i n c o m p a t i b l e a c t i v i t i e s . To him, viewing l i t e r a t u r e as human experience anchored i n a world of moral values such as  "responsibility,"  a c t i v i t i e s . To him, viewing l i t e r a t u r e as human e x p e r i e n c e anchored  i n a world of moral v a l u e s such as  "responsibility,"  " s i n s i b i l i t y , " and " c o l l a b o r a t i v e " a c t i o n renders  criticism  more a p p r o p r i a t e t o the study of l i t e r a t u r e and c u l t u r e than any method propounding epistemology.  a s c i e n t i f i c or p h i l o s o p h i c a l  In f a c t , h i s c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h  scientificity  marked h i s d i s c o u r s e w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r language  which was  not  t o t a l l y a l i e n t o the dominant s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o u r s e of h i s time; hence the complexity of L e a v i s ' s statements  about  l i t e r a t u r e , c r i t i c i s m , and s c i e n c e .  U n t i l h i s death i n 1978,  L e a v i s r e p e a t e d l y defended  h i m s e l f a g a i n s t a l l these o b j e c t i o n s t o h i s views of c r i t i c i s m and he formulated h i s own  l i t e r a r y p r i n c i p l e s i n response t o  those c r i t i q u e s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t him. H i s c r i t e r i a of a n a l y s i s o f t e n swayed between the c e l e b r a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r pseudop o s i t i v i s t i c view of c u l t u r e , s i n c e these c r i t e r i a were marked by an e m p i r i c i s t bent, and an o v e r t r e j e c t i o n of a b s t r a c t h y p o t h e s e s — w h e t h e r p h i l o s o p h i c a l or s c i e n t i f i c — i n defence of i n t u i t i o n and emotion.  In so doing and d e s p i t e h i s c o n f e s s i o n  t h a t " I n e i t h e r b e l i e v e i n any s p e c i a l h o s t i l e t o s c i e n c e " (Nor S h a l l My  ' l i t e r a r y * v a l u e nor  am  Sword 152). L e a v i s t r i e d t o  put forward a method of "judgement and a n a l y s i s " t h a t emphasized, such n o t i o n s as " p r e c i s i o n , " " v e r i f i c a t i o n " of value-judgement  (see The L i v i n g P r i n c i p l e 35), and the i d e a of  the l i t e r a r y work as a " c o n c r e t e " o b j e c t o f study whose  r e a d i n g n e c e s s i t a t e s a k i n d of p s e u d o - o b j e c t i v e on the p a r t of the c r i t i c  (Revaluation 10). These n o t i o n s  which L e a v i s shares with other c r i t i c s , and Richards  "self-denial"  i n h i s e a r l y phase who  such as E l i o t ,  have defended  Empson,  the  p o s s i b i l i t y of an " o b j e c t i v e " c r i t i c i s m , c o n s t i t u t e h i s a n t i - s c i e n t i f i c system. But these n o t i o n s , most  importantly,  r e v e a l a l s o a c e n t r a l paradox i n the t h e o r i z a t i o n of h i s c r i t i c a l approach. H i s f o r m u l a t i o n of c r i t i c a l  criteria  remains p o s i t i v i s t i c a t the l e v e l of i t s language but a n t i - p o s i t i v i s t i c and a n t i - s c i e n t i f i c at the l e v e l of i t s c u l t u r a l content.  T h i s i s the major t h e s i s t h a t governs  Leavis's t h e o r e t i c a l  vision.  However, t h i s paradox or t h e o r e t i c a l impasse which c o n f r o n t s L e a v i s ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c method cannot be understood simply on i t s own,  without  r e l a t i n g i t to a  complex network of p r i n c i p l e s . Some of these are indebted  to  an A r n o l d i a n h e r i t a g e w h i l e othe r s are anchored i n an E n g l i s h c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n t h a t extends back t o Ruskin, Coleridge 248).  Carlyle,  (see Raymond W i l l i a m s , C u l t u r e and S o c i e t y  and  154;  Moreover, these p r i n c i p l e s p e r t a i n t o h i s view of  s o c i e t y , c u l t u r e , and the f u n c t i o n of both l i t e r a t u r e  and  c r i t i c i s m i n a contemporary c i v i l i s a t i o n p e r c e i v e d as being the b r i n k of chaos. As L e a v i s p o i n t e d out i n 1933, d i s i n t e g r a t i o n , s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l , has  "when  s e t i n , the  of c r i t i c i s m becomes v e r y d i f f i c u l t o f performance"  on  business (Towards  Standards to  of C r i t i c i s m 5 ) .  T h i s i s why  I f i n d i t imperative  look f i r s t a t L e a v i s ' s theory of c u l t u r e i n i t s  r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the q u e s t i o n of s c i e n c e . For i n h i s c r i t i c a l model, i n t e r p r e t i v e method i s caught between a d e s i r e t o i n s t a u r e a l o s t past of o r g a n i c c u l t u r e and t o formulate a critical  method i n response  t o the hegemony of s c i e n c e .  Moreover, the i n f l u e n c e of the E n g l i s h c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n L e a v i s ' s understanding  on  of these q u e s t i o n s o f f e r s us some  s i g n i f i c a n t c l u e s as t o the nature of t h i s c r i t i c a l  system.  Indeed, among L e a v i s ' s e a r l y concerns which brought p o p u l a r i t y a t Cambridge U n i v e s i t y was  him  h i s a t t e n t i o n t o the  importance of c u l t u r e i n s e c u r i n g a remedy f o r the post-war c r i s i s of E n g l i s h s o c i e t y . While a d d r e s s i n g the q u e s t i o n s of l i t e r a t u r e , c r i t i c i s m , and s c i e n t i f i c method, he worked towards the f o r m u l a t i o n of a c u l t u r a l theory t h a t was  to  remain l o n g a c e n t r a l component of h i s t h e o r i z a t i o n of c r i t i c i s m and h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s c i e n c e . Yet,  his  d i s c u s s i o n of c u l t u r e never produced a s y s t e m a t i c t h e o r y . elements of such a "theory" must be gathered  The  from the v a r i o u s  pronouncements L e a v i s made about s o c i e t y and l i t e r a t u r e i n g e n e r a l i n o r d e r f o r us t o understand Often, h i s d e f i n i t i o n s of concepts,  what h i s r e a l aim  was.  e s p e c i a l l y of "organic  c u l t u r e , " which he i d e a l i z e d , remain q u i t e ambiguous. N e v e r t h e l e s s , h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the debate around the q u e s t i o n of c u l t u r e proved  fruitful  i n the E n g l i s h c o n t e x t .  45 For  i t was t h i s q u e s t i o n o f c u l t u r e , which subsequently had  d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on t h e development o f a number o f c u l t u r a l critics  i n England, namely R. Hoggart, E.P. Thompson,  R. W i l l i a m s ,  S. H a l l , and others  Cultural Critics),  (see L e s l e y Johnson, The  and l e d i n the end t o t h e f o u n d a t i o n by  Hoggart i n 1959 o f the Centre f o r Contemporary C u l t u r a l S t u d i e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Birmingham (see M i c h a e l Green, "The  Centre f o r Contemporary C u l t u r a l S t u d i e s , "  77-90).  What was t o occupy primary a t t e n t i o n i n L e a v i s i t e t h i n k i n g then was the f a t e o f " o r g a n i c c u l t u r e . " I t was t h e idea o f an " o r g a n i c s o c i e t y " i n p a r t i c u l a r which became c e n t r a l t o h i s worldview even when he emphasized c r i t i c i s m as a s p e c i a l " d i s c i p l i n e o f thought" w i t h i t s c l a i m t o c l e a r l y defined  standards o f " p r e c i s i o n , " e m p i r i c a l  a t t e n t i o n t o "the  words on t h e page," and " s e n s i b i l i t y " i n c r i t i c a l response. In his  f i r s t pamphlet, Mass C i v i l i s a t i o n and M i n o r i t y  (1930), L e a v i s p o i n t s  Culture  out t h a t the c r i s i s o f modern s o c i e t y i s  a c r i s i s o f c u l t u r e , r e s u l t i n g from the d i s i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e " o r g a n i c s o c i e t y " o f t h e p a s t . " I t i s a commonplace to-day," he argues, " t h a t c u l t u r e i s a t a c r i s i s . I t i s a commonplace more w i d e l y accepted than understood: a t any r a t e , r e a l i s a t i o n of what t h e c r i s i s portends does not seem t o be common" (Mass C i v i l i s a t i o n 5 ) . To L e a v i s , of modern t e c h n o l o g i z e d  t h i s c r i s i s i s p a r t o f t h e ethos  civilisation,  a s i t u a t i o n that i s  enhanced by r a p i d change, the n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f technology,  46 mass-production, and  To  the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of  values.  i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t about the e f f e c t s of  i n d u s t r i a l i s m , he r e f e r s t o the machine as the symbol excellence He  par  t h a t mediates the nature of t h i s c r i s i s of c u l t u r e .  says:  The machine, i n the f i r s t p l a c e has brought change i n h a b i t and the circumstances of l i f e a t a r a t e f o r which we have no p a r a l l e l . . . Change has been so c a t a s t r o p h i c t h a t the g e n e r a t i o n s f i n d i t hard t o a d j u s t themselves t o each other, and p a r e n t s are h e l p l e s s t o d e a l w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n . I t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t the c o n d i t i o n s of l i f e can be transformed i n t h i s way without some i n j u r y t o the standards of l i v i n g . . . : i m p r o v i s a t i o n can h a r d l y r e p l a c e the d e l i c a t e t r a d i t i o n a l adjustments, the mature, i n h e r i t e d codes of h a b i t and v a l u a t i o n , without severe l o s s , and l o s s t h a t may be more than temporary. I t i s a breach i n c o n t i n u i t y t h a t t h r e a t e n s : what has been i n a d v e r t e n t l y dropped may be i r r e c o v e r a b l e or f o r g o t t e n . (Mass C i v i l i s a t i o n 6-7) Modern " c i v i l i s a t i o n " has become a t h r e a t t o " c u l t u r e . " C o n s i s t i n g of " i n h e r i t e d codes of h a b i t " t h i s c u l t u r e i s based upon an important sense of t r a d i t i o n . I t seeks t o ensure the c o n t i n u i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r sense of c o h e s i o n among a l l the members of the community; hence i t s " o r g a n i c " advent o f the modern age,  according  character.  t o L e a v i s , has  The  brought  w i t h i t a c i v i l i s a t i o n t h a t negates n e a r l y a l l the elements of t h i s "organic c u l t u r e has  c u l t u r e . " As a r e s u l t , the f u t u r e of such a  become bleak,  "the p r o s p e c t s  but without being t o t a l l y  hopeless:  of c u l t u r e , then, are v e r y dark. There i s the  l e s s room f o r hope i n t h a t a s t a n d a r d i s e d c i v i l i s a t i o n i s r a p i d l y e n v e l o p i n g the whole world"  Indeed, i n opposing  (30).  " c u l t u r e " and  "civilisation,"  L e a v i s p e r c e i v e s the former as the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a s e l e c t m i n o r i t y and r e p r e s e n t s the A r n o l d i a n p r i n c i p l e of "the b e s t t h a t has been thought  i n the world." In c o n t r a s t , the  stands f o r the uncouth p r a c t i c e s of the populace who  latter are s a i d  t o be enslaved by the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f the machine and  the  u n s p i r i t u a l m a t e r i a l i s m of the m a r k e t - o r i e n t e d technology  of  p u b l i c i t y i n t h e i r l i v e s . Such a s t a t e of a f f a i r s i s b e s t e x e m p l i f i e d by the a l i e n a t i n g e f f e c t s of the media and  the  f i l m i n d u s t r y on the masses: The f i l m s . . .provide now the main form of r e c r e a t i o n i n the c i v i l i s e d world; and they i n v o l v e surrender, under c o n d i t i o n s of h y p n o t i c r e c e p t i v i t y , t o the cheapest emotional appeals, appeals the more i n s i d i o u s because they are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a c o m p e l l i n g l y v i v i d i l l u s i o n of a c t u a l l i f e . (9-10) A c c o r d i n g l y , the i l l u s o r y and a l i e n a t i n g e f f e c t s o f consumerist  c i v i l i s a t i o n negate the a u t h e n t i c i t y of the modes  of f e e l i n g i n the " o r g a n i c " world. And "emotion" and  "feeling,"  " s i n c e r e " r e s p o n s i v e n e s s , i s an  like  essential  component o f L e a v i s ' s t h e o r i z a t i o n of c u l t u r e and  criticism.  These romantic concepts o f f e r major bases on which L e a v i s seeks t o b u i l d h i s r e f u t a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c i t y .  48 However, i n p e r c e i v i n g " c i v i l i s a t i o n "  and " c u l t u r e " as  " a n t i t h e t i c a l terms," L e a v i s r e v e r s e s t h e order o f h i s t o r y as w e l l as t h e dominant conception o f h i s contemporary Instead o f p o r t r a y i n g c i v i l i s a t i o n  world.  as p r o g r e s s , he p e r c e i v e s  i t as " c i v i l i z e d b a r b a r i t y , complacent, s e l f - i n d u l g e n t and ignorant.  . . [ I t ] can see nothing t o be q u a r r e l l e d with i n  b e l i e v i n g , o r wanting t o b e l i e v e , t h a t a computer can w r i t e a poem" (Nor S h a l l my Sword 207). Technology i s , t h e r e f o r e , i n c a p a b l e o f g e n e r a t i n g o r e f f e c t i n g a u t h e n t i c and " v i t a l " human emotions; t h e "cheapest  emotional  appeals"  i t effects  among t h e masses a r e i n i m i c a l t o a " h e a l t h y " c u l t u r a l order as r e f l e c t e d i n t h e " o r g a n i c " s o c i e t y o f t h e seventeenth for  century,  instance.  For an a l t e r n a t i v e t o modernity and consumerist civilisation,  Leavis turns h i s a t t e n t i o n t o the p r e - i n d u s t r i a l  p a s t as a genuine epitome o f a l l r e f i n e d modes o f thought and living.  These modes a r e expressed  " a r t - s p e e c h , " mediating  i n t h e language o f  " o r g a n i c c u l t u r e " as i t i s found, f o r  i n s t a n c e , i n t h e works o f Shakespeare, Bunyan, and Donne. Commenting on a passage from Bunyan's The P i l g r i m ' s Progress, L e a v i s says t h a t t h e language here i s p l a i n l y t r a d i t i o n a l a r t and, e q u a l l y p l a i n l y t h e l i f e i n i t i s o f t h e people. . .The names and r a c y t u r n s a r e o r g a n i c with t h e g e n e r a l s t y l e s and t h e s t y l e , c o n c e n t r a t i n g t h e l i f e o f p o p u l a r idiom, i s the e x p r e s s i o n o f popular h a b i t — t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f a v i g o r o u s humane c u l t u r e . For what i s i n v o l v e d i s not merely an i d i o m a t i c r a c i n e s s o f speech,  49 e x p r e s s i n g a s t r o n g v i t a l i t y , but an a r t of s o c i a l l i v i n g , with i t s mature h a b i t s of v a l u a t i o n . . . . There would have been no Shakespeare and no Bunyan i f i n t h e i r time, with a l l i t s disadvantages by p r e s e n t standards, t h e r e had not been, l i v i n g i n the d a i l y l i f e of the people, a p o s i t i v e c u l t u r e which has disappeared. (The Common P u r s u i t 2 08) 1  For L e a v i s , the modes of l i v i n g expressed  by "popular  or " a r t - s p e e c h " mediate other n o t i o n s such as "vitality,"  "life,"  " t r a d i t i o n , " and the " c o n t i n u i t y " of  c u l t u r e . " These are necessary  idiom"  a "humane  i n g r e d i e n t s f o r an i d e a l c u l t u r e  t h a t would produce poets and a r t i s t s such as Donne, Blake, Lawrence. The  or  elements of an " o r g a n i c s o c i e t y " are h e l d  t o g e t h e r by a c e n t e r of a u t h o r i t y t h a t looks a f t e r the h e a l t h of  the c u l t u r e and  i t s cohesion. C u l t u r a l d i s i n t e g r a t i o n means  t h a t "the power and sense of a u t h o r i t y are. culture"  (Mass C i v i l i s a t i o n 26).  . . d i v o r c e d from  T h i s l o c u s of a u t h o r i t y i s  l a t e r a t t r i b u t e d t o the d i s c i p l i n e of c r i t i c i s m through i t s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n a t the u n i v e r s i t y and critical  review  l i k e The Calendar  i s supported  by a  or S c r u t i n y .  As t o the e m p i r i c a l p r o o f f o r the e x i s t e n c e of t h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d " o r g a n i c c u l t u r e , " L e a v i s r e l i e d mostly  on  two  books, The Wheelwright Shop (1923) and Change i n the V i l l a g e (1912), by George S t u r t (George Bourne), which d e p i c t the  In C u l t u r e and Environment, p. d e s c r i b e The P i l g r i m ' s Progress as the organic c u l t u r e .  2, L e a v i s and Thompson "supreme e x p r e s s i o n " of  50 beginning  of the I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n and  i t s effects  on  r u r a l England. L e a v i s r e l i e d a l s o on the " a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l " s t u d i e s of Q.D.  L e a v i s i n her F i c t i o n and the Reading P u b l i c  (1932). T h i s book which was launched,  p u b l i s h e d the year S c r u t i n y  was  had a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on the S c r u t i n e e r s ' method of  a n a l y s i s , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e i r reviews  of the n o v e l .  2  Queenie  L e a v i s ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the h i s t o r y of the E n g l i s h novel and o l d England's determining of l i t e r a t u r e resembles F.R. t r a d i t i o n . " The  r o l e i n g e n e r a t i n g the L e a v i s ' s r e a d i n g of the  classics "great  f o l l o w i n g passage from the l a s t p u b l i c l e c t u r e  she gave i n her l i f e t i m e sums up her views of  literature,  " o r g a n i c c u l t u r e , " and modern c i v i l i s a t i o n . She  says:  The England t h a t bore the c l a s s i c a l E n g l i s h novel has gone f o r e v e r , and we can't expect a country of h i g h - r i s e f l a t - d w e l l e r s , o f f i c e workers and f a c t o r y robots and u n a s s i m i l a t e d m u l t i - r a c i a l m i n o r i t i e s , with a suburbanized c o u n t r y s i d e , f a c t o r y farming, sexual emancipation without r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , r i s i n g crime and v i o l e n c e , and the Trade Union m e n t a l i t y , t o g i v e r i s e t o a l i t e r a t u r e comparable w i t h i t s novel t r a d i t i o n of a so d i f f e r e n t p a s t . ( C o l l e c t e d Essays 325) Here, Queenie L e a v i s ' s view of the f a t e of the  idealized  c u l t u r e of the past seems t o be even more r a d i c a l l y t o the r i g h t and more p e s s i m i s t i c than t h a t of her husband. But  her  r e j e c t i o n of n e a r l y a l l s i g n s of modernity, i n c l u d i n g women's  See G. Singh, E d i t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n , C o l l e c t e d Essays: V o l . One: The E n g l i s h n e s s of the E n g l i s h Novel by Q. D. L e a v i s , p. 2; and F. R. L e a v i s , " ' S c r u t i n y ' : A R e t r o s p e c t , " S c r u t i n y , V o l . 20 (1963), pp. 2, 9, and 13.  l i b e r a t i o n movements, lends s t r o n g support t o t h e g e n e r a l L e a v i s i t e p r i n c i p l e o f c u l t u r e . Moreover, h e r i n s i s t e n c e on the r o l e o f t h e " p u r i t a n c o n s c i e n c e " i n enhancing t h e emergence o f t h e E n g l i s h c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n p o i n t s towards F. R. L e a v i s ' s own p r i v i l e g i n g o f f i g u r e s l i k e Bunyan and Lawrence and t h e i r worldviews, e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r emphasis on m o r a l i t y and r e l i g i o n as imperative dimensions t o a h e a l t h y c u l t u r a l order. Indeed, t a l k i n g about t h e n o v e l i s t s he s e l e c t s t o r e p r e s e n t t h e "great t r a d i t i o n , " L e a v i s maintains  that  "they a r e a l l d i s t i n g u i s h e d by a v i t a l c a p a c i t y f o r experience, a k i n d o f r e v e r e n t openness b e f o r e l i f e , marked moral i n t e n s i t y "  and a  (The Great T r a d i t i o n 18).  As f o r S t u r t ' s testimony t o t h e disappearance  of o l d  c r a f t s and t r a d i t i o n a l s k i l l s as a r e s u l t o f t h e spread o f technology,  i t i s w i d e l y d i s c u s s e d by L e a v i s and Thompson i n  t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i v e work, C u l t u r e and Environment. F o r S t u r t , the wheelwright's shop i s t h e symbol o f a t h o r o u g h l y humane " o r g a n i c " o r d e r t h a t c e n t e r e d around a k i n d o f t a c i t  "folk  knowledge." Bourne maintains t h a t A good wheelwright knew by a r t but not by reason the p r o p o r t i o n t o keep between spoke and f e l l o e s ; and so t o o a good smith knew how t i g h t a two-anda - h a l f i n c h t y r e should be made f o r a f i v e f o o t wheel and how t i g h t f o r a f o u r f o o t . He f e l t i t , i n h i s bones. I t was p e r c e p t i o n w i t h him. (G. Bourne, q t d . i n Eugene Goodheart, The F a i l u r e o f C r i t i c i s m 17)  There i s a k i n d of mystery i n t h i s antique wheelwright possesses and essential s k i l l civilisation  skill  f e e l s " i n h i s bones."  the I t i s an  t h a t i s l a c k i n g i n contemporary  technologized  and whose disappearance i s lamented by  L e a v i s e s . When F.R.  Leavis l a t e r r e c a l l s h i s i n i t i a l  of S t u r t ' s work, he says t h a t the wheelwright's work a v a r i e t y of t r a d i t i o n a l s k i l l s which "contained meaning" and t h i s was  the reading presents  a f u l l human  "kept a human s i g n i f i c a n c e always present,  a climate  i n which the craftsman l i v e d and  L i v e d as he worked" (Nor S h a l l my  Sword  and  worked.  85).  However, t h i s q u a l i t y of humanness, l i k e t h a t of claimed  organic  nature of p r e - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s , remains  h i g h l y ambiguous. For d e s p i t e L e a v i s ' s d e f i n i t i o n s and  the  i n s i s t a n c e on c l e a r  c r i t i c a l " d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " the  idea of  " v i l l a g e l i f e " as the examplar of t h i s " o r g a n i c " must remain " s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y "  ( C u l t u r e and  human c u l t u r e  Environment  83;  emphasis added). I t i s grasped mainly through a number of symbols and metaphors. L i k e the symbol of the machine i n the context  of a t e c h n o l o g i c a l c i v i l i s a t