“That rupture in the conception of history and becoming, described in the foregoing, proves to propagate itself further, bringing into question the very organization and operation of all cognition. That is, the reformulation of historiography contemplated above entails not just new knowledge but potentially a new kind of knowledge, triggering a potentially still greater discontinuity in the possibilities of knowledge and understanding themselves.” (Kates 147)Kates argues that this rupture--although its origin, cause, nature, and effects are unidentified--has influenced all knowledge and understanding since its inception. No matter how new, in-depth, or nuanced theories of historiography may be, they cannot adequately function as studies of historiography because they are inherently unable to incorporate Althusser’s rupture. This explains Kates title, “Against the Period”: in the face of such an influential, unpredictable rupture, such periods as Early Modern, Long Eighteenth-Century, Modernism, and others, seem naive at best, and “a tale told by an idiot” at worst.
Our primary texts, Gallathea and Frankenstein, are both conventionally viewed as being firmly embedded in their respective “periods” of literary history, typifying their historical and cultural moments in their form, content, and approach. In fact, scholars of Gallathea often emphasize how dangerous it is to attempt to analyze the play outside of its historical period: this is not a play about modern gender reassignment surgery, and Gallathea and Phyllida should not be seen as English drama’s first lesbian/trans* couple (especially in the wake of such scholarship as Foucault’s History of Sexuality). In contrast, some scholars position Frankenstein as a candidate for the first science fiction novel, thus marking its period as the originating point of a new genre. In other words, critics have wedded Gallathea to its historical moment because of its affinity with other early modern dramas and differentiation from later works, whereas they have bound Frankenstein to its historical moment because of the ways in which the novel locates the origination point of the genre of science fiction in Romanticism, thus (arguably) marking Romanticism as an origin of a new genre. In both cases, and for opposing reasons, these texts have been burdened with identification within and through a “period” that therefore seems somewhat circularly defined.
We find it interesting to think about "The Period" in terms of its use(ful/less)ness in discussing, say, how ideas about the “laws” of nature--the boundaries of possibility and acceptability--might have shifted between the Early Modern and Romantic periods in Britain. We can interpret this as a change over time in strategies for encountering and making sense of the “rupture” that Kates posits above. Certainly both texts feature drastic and sudden changes in “realities” that previously appeared static and stable. We can play with the idea of period as a tool for looking at that change and/or as an obstacle to understanding the shift as organic, gradual, and contingent. It’s also interesting to think about the implications of both our texts adapting/appropriating earlier stories and how/whether that complicates "Period" and this idea of an evolving approach to the rupture. We feel like we don't have a solid answer either way as to whether periodization (as Kates discusses it) is generally a help or a hindrance in this endeavor, but we think that's ok. Ultimately we find that “period” should not serve as a concrete delineation between different spirits of the age and that it is far more helpful to consider periodization as a reflection of the changing ways in which writers have explored and “battled” with the rupture throughout time.
Jessica and Averyl out
*mic drop*
Averyl and Jessica, this post was really helpful for my understanding of the Kates article. I throughout was frustrated by the lack of concrete examples, and you provided just that. As I was reading Kates I became very caught up in his attempt to explain Althusser's conception of time with quotes like this: "Similarly, within any period, a single, simple present, an absolute contemporaneity, holds sway. Any period must section off a segment of time, which, as time, is no different from any other, bringing every aspect within it immediately into contact with every other aspect" (138). I understand that in this instance Kates is trying to explicate homogeneous continuity and contemporaneity in the shaping of periods and cultures/trends within these periods, but I was then perplexed as to what kind of time we should or should not focus on? I'm all for ruptures and thinking outside of time periods, but I wanted to be grounded in what Althusser via Kates and what Kates himself really thought about thinking this way. In a nutshell, I like that you brought these ideas back to your two primary texts and pointed out that rupture and change can be found within the books (perhaps each has its own realm of contemporaneity??). Thanks for this! (Hope this makes sense!) :)
ReplyDeleteI really like your idea of looking at adaptations/apprpriations. Seeing how the same stories are told throughout history, and what elements are retained/changed, and in what periods seems as if it could be one of the clearer ways to look at how literary periods are ultimately connected.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I was thinking--there is such a rich vein of meaning in the mapping of what repeats, what changes, and what drops away entirely when literature of earlier "periods" is reinterpreted and reinvoked later. I think this is nowhere clearer than in classical literature's ubiquity in western cultures since, and certainly medievalisms are another example. Even more interesting, maybe, is the way that classical tropes and entire stories were reinvented in/through the Middle Ages and are now viewed as essentially medieval.
DeleteI too struggled through the Kates article, not only because of the lack of concrete examples but because of the general obtuseness of the article. I appreciate Jessica's and Averyl's grounding of the piece, especially in relation to their own novels. Because I'm not yet settled on any one period for study yet, I often feel at loose ends, hoping a particular era will grab me and stop my wandering. In the meantime, I'll embrace the summation of this blog: "we find that “period” should not serve as a concrete delineation between different spirits of the age and that it is far more helpful to consider periodization as a reflection of the changing ways in which writers have explored and “battled” with the rupture throughout time." Thanks for leaving us with the uplifting twist on this article.
ReplyDeleteI like that you guys went for it here. I think I read this article three times before really getting anything from it, and one of my frustrations here that I share with Sophia is we might as well be reading Althusser. Well, that's not really true because contextualizing the argument and writing this kind of intellectual history is an important project, but for what it's worth, probably not as important as the various tasks for liberation proposed in the original text. Really like your final assessment of periodization as being a useful way to talk about rupture, as Sally also admires. Maybe we should rename this new branch of knowledge that Kates and Althusser call "Theory" and instead call it "Rupture Studies." Just an idea.
ReplyDeleteKindley says that Big Theory is the same thing as Big Criticism, so would Big Rupture Studies be the same, or would there be some sort of rupture...? Forgive the terrible joke, I couldn't help myself. I like the idea, though! And ditto that Jessica and Averyl's reading making use of texts from different periods as concrete examples was very helpful!
ReplyDelete"This rupture--although its origin, cause, nature, and effects are unidentified--has influenced all knowledge and understanding since its inception". I love this moment in what you two write, which I read as at least a little ironical. If I understand what you mean with regard to the "laws" of nature: are you referring to the ways in which each of your texts posits interventions on human bodies that defy biology as we know it? At least to me, that's a fascinating connection. I still don't understand the Kates piece, and I appreciate your bravery in tackling it!
ReplyDeleteKudos, again, for taking this on. Double kudos for the mic drop.
ReplyDeleteOn page 140 he mentions "totality" and your post got me thinking about his ideas in relation to essentialism. You mention that your texts typify "their historical and cultural moments in their form, content, and approach" and fulfilled some level of acceptibility at the time of their publication. I wonder, in this time of self publishing and small presses how much typicality and accessibility are not only things of the past (as I suppose he's trying to say) but not only important for self-determination for historically underrepresented groups.