Formalism vs. Historicism - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Formalism versus Historicism: A debate at the heart of literary studies and particularly prominent within Comparative Literature, concerns how we derive meaning from texts. Is meaning inherent within the artwork itself, discoverable through close reading of its form, structure, language, and internal relationships, or is it constructed by the historical, social, and cultural context that surrounds it? Often presented as opposing approaches, they represent a continuous spectrum of critical perspectives, each offering profound insights, yet simultaneously obscuring certain aspects of understanding. Are these truly mutually exclusive methodologies or rather, complementary lenses through which to view the complex interplay between art and its world?
While the formalist impulse – prioritizing the text's internal mechanics – stretches back to antiquity with rhetorical analysis, its modern articulation took shape in the early 20th century, particularly with the Russian Formalists like Viktor Shklovsky in the 1910s. Figures associated with the New Criticism movement, gaining traction in the 1930s and 40s in the United States, also advocated for a focus on the text itself, divorcing it from biographical, historical, or intentional fallacies. Simultaneously, historicism, with roots in 19th-century historical scholarship, and especially the work of figures like Hippolyte Taine, placed artworks firmly within specific historical and social contexts, viewing literature as a product of its time. The tension between these approaches intensified post-World War II, fueled by debates over interpretation, ideology, and the role of literature in society. Some argue that a purely formalist approach risks ignoring voices marginalized by history, while a purely historicist approach risks reducing a work of art to mere historical data, neglecting its unique aesthetic qualities.
Over time, both approaches have undergone numerous reinterpretations and critiques. "New Historicism," emerging in the 1980s, sought to bridge the divide, acknowledging the intricate interplay between text and context, emphasizing that history itself is a narrative shaped by power relations. Figures like Stephen Greenblatt have been particularly influential in this blending. Consider the enduring fascination with Shakespeare: a formalist might analyze the complex use of metaphor and dramatic irony in Hamlet, while a historicist might explore the play's reflection of Elizabethan England's political anxieties and social hierarchies. The ongoing quest to understand the relationship between the artist, the art, and the world continues to drive scholars to uncover deeper truths and to ask, does a text truly transcend its historical origins, or is it forever bound by the threads of its creation?
The Formalism versus Historicism debate refuses to fade, continually resurfacing in contemporary discussions about canonicity, cultural appropriation, and the politics of interpretation. The rise of digital humanities presents new opportunities to analyze vast corpora of texts, potentially revealing patterns and connections that support either formalist or historicist arguments. The challenge remains to harness these tools and insights to engage with literature in a way that is both rigorous and enriching, recognizing the power of both the individual artwork and the historical forces that shape its creation and reception. How will future generations of scholars engage with this dynamic tension, and what new understandings will they uncover?