2017/02/14

Theory of Literature - Wikipedia

Theory of Literature - Wikipedia



Theory of Literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theory of Literature
Theory of Literature cover.jpg
Dust jacket, first edition
Author
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SubjectLiterary scholarship
PublisherHarcourt, Brace, and Company
Publication date
Media typeHardcover
Pages403
OCLC1599846
Theory of Literature is a book on literary scholarship by René Wellek, of the structuralistPrague school, and Austin Warren, a self-described "old New Critic".[1] The two met at the University of Iowa in the late 1930s, and by 1940 had begun writing the book; they wrote collaboratively, in a single voice over a period of three years. Its contents were based on their shared understandings of literature.
Originally consisting of twenty chapters – one was cut in later editions – Theory of Literature describes various aspects of literary theory, criticism, and history. After defining various aspects and relationships of literature in general, Wellek and Warren divide analysis of literature based on two approaches: extrinsic, relating to factors outside a work such as the author and society, and intrinsic, relating to factors within such as rhythm and meter. They stress the need to focus on the intrinsic elements of a work as the best way to truly understand it. In doing so they adapt the phenomenology used by Roman Ingarden.
Published by Harcourt, Brace, and Company in December 1948, Theory of Literature received mixed reviews from the academic community. It was used to teach literary theory beginning soon after publication and remained in common use into the 1960s. Its success has been credited as introducing European literary scholarship into the US and crystallizing a movement towards intrinsic literary criticism. Theory of Literature saw three editions and has been translated into more than twenty languages.

Background[edit]

René Wellek (1903–1995[2]) was an Austrian-born scholar from the structuralist Prague school of linguistics,[3] studying under Vilém Mathesius.[4] Wellek had training in classical literature and was fluent in several European languages, both Romance and Slavic.[5] His theoretical training included the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, as used in Roman Ingarden's work, and the psychologically influenced linguistics of Karl Bühler.[6] After Nazi Germany occupied Prague in 1939, Wellek fled London – where he had been teaching – for the United States, teaching at the University of Iowa under Norman Foerster.[7]
There Wellek met Austin Warren (1899–1986[8]), an American literary scholar who considered himself an "old New Critic".[1] He had written extensively on literary criticism[9] and was raised in, but later saw several limitations to, the New Humanist views promoted by Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More. Wellek and Warren were soon in agreement over several aspects of literature, and by 1940 they had begun considering collaboration on a book.[10] Over the next several years they furthered their understandings of European and American literature theory through discussions with Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, and extensive reading of contemporary European writings.[11]

Writing[edit]

Owing to several academic commitments, work on Theory of Literature did not begin until 1945, after Wellek and Warren received a stipend from the Rockefeller Foundation over a period of two summers. Wellek and Warren began dividing their responsibilities, at first evenly, but with more work done by Wellek as Warren dealt with the illness, and later loss, of his wife Eleanor in 1946. During this period of writing Wellek transferred to Yale University (1946) and Warren to the University of Michigan (1948), but collaboration continued.[12]
The title, according to Wellek and Warren, was "more than ordinarily difficult" to choose. Some titles, such as Theory of Literature and Methodology of Literary Study, were dismissed as too cumbersome.[13]However, in a 1950 review for The Antioch Review, the literary scholar Herbert S. Benjamin wrote that a better title would have been Theory of the Methodology of the Literary Study; he considered the book lacking the theory implied by the chosen title.[14][15]
The original publication of Theory of Literature consists of twenty chapters set in five sections based on thematic similarities;[16] one chapter and section was removed in later editions.[17] Wellek contributed thirteen of the book's chapters, while Warren wrote six; the final chapter was written collaboratively.[18] Although most of the chapters are credited as the work of one man, the two often copyedited and proofread each other's work, at times inserting entire sentences or paragraphs. Each also suggested further references that the other could use in expanding his chapter.[12]
In their writing Wellek and Warren attempted to present a single voice despite the dominance of individuals.[18] Their success in presenting such a voice has been debated. Wellek later recalled that people often told him it was difficult to tell who had written which chapter without consulting the book's introduction.[19] However, the literary scholar C. J. van Rees of Tilburg University notes that Wellek's influences are prevalent in chapters authored by Warren.[20] Aldo Scaglione, in a review of the second edition, wrote that "one immediately senses the change of hand" between chapters by different authors.[15]

Contents[edit]

Section 1: Definitions and Distinctions.[edit]

The first section, entitled Definitions and Distinctions, consists of five chapters and details how Wellek and Warren define literature.[16] This section also contrasts Wellek and Warren's definition with those of others, such views of literature as everything in print and as only belles-lettres (accepted literary canon). They define literary scholarship as beyond the personal ("super-personal")[21] and contrasted with the literary arts by its more scientific approach.[22] Wellek and Warren suggest that neither a purely objective nor a purely subjective approach would be able to properly describe literature. They note that literary scholarship should not only examine what makes a work or author unique, but also its general characteristics that allow it to be compared to other works.[23]
A painting of a man in a toga, looking forward and smiling; he is holding a writing utensil.
Wellek and Warren begin their discussion of the function of literature with Horace's proclamation that works should be "sweet and useful" (dulce et utile).
Wellek and Warren limit their definition of literature to pieces of "imaginative literature", which can gain artistic merit from their coherence and complexity. The language in literary works is contrasted from scientific and other language by the use of connotative (non-literal) language and expressive content.[24][25] Studies of literature must be literary and systematic,[26] treating literature as literature and not part of another field.[27]Wellek and Warren discuss several proposed functions of literature, beginning with Horace's proclamation that literature must be "sweet and useful" (dulce et utile; have a coalescing aesthetic and functional role), and extending to literature as a substitute for travel and experience, a vehicle for truth or persuasion, to relieve or incite emotion, or as something without a function.[28] They ultimately describe the main function of literature as being loyal to its own nature.[29]
They call for a systematic and integrated study of literature, uniting literary theory, which outlines the basic principles of literature; criticism, which critiques individual works; and history, which outlines the development of literature. Although these aspects have clear distinctions, they are in a dialectical relationship and should not be separated; for example, a theory of literature is impossible without referring to works of literature.[30] They reject Historicist approaches to literary history, which they find reduce literary history to "a series of discrete and hence finally incomprehensible fragments" and emphasize the author's intent too greatly.[31] Instead, Wellek and Warren argue that a work must be seen from the point of view of both its own period and all subsequent periods, as a work's historical meaning is derived from "the history of its criticism by its many readers in many ages."[31]Criticism should not be limited to classical and medieval literature, but also include works by living authors.[32]
Wellek and Warren describe the term comparative literature as "troublesome", noting that it has been used for the study of oral literature, the study of the literatures in two or more countries, and the study of a "general", "universal", or "world" literature; this last use, according to the authors, obviates issues present in the other understandings of the term.[33] This understanding of literature as a totality can be used to trace the development of the art, unlimited by differences between languages.[34] Within this comparative literature other supernational literatures, which may be based on language families and schools, are also apparent. There are also national literatures which, although possibly of the same language, will still have thematic differentiations. These are also worthy of study.[35]
A balding man with a beard and mustache
In describing the treatment of manuscripts, Wellek and Warren often cite research into the works of William Shakespeare.[36]

Section 2: Preliminary Operations[edit]

This section consists of a single chapter regarding the treatment, classification, annotation, and other aspects of working with manuscripts and related documentation.[16]Wellek and Warren describe tasks such as authenticating manuscripts and establishing an author and date as important ones without which "critical analysis and historical understanding would be hopelessly handicapped"; however, these tasks should be preliminary to the "ultimate task of scholarship", analysis, and not a goal in themselves.[37] Wellek and Warren note the importance of identifying forgeries, a task which can be completed in numerous ways: paleography, bibliography, linguistics, and history may all be involved. These forgeries may spark further investigation and literary debates which can result in a better understanding of the period, the writer, or the writer's oevre.[38]
The authors identify two levels of operations when dealing with manuscripts: the assembly and preparation of the materials, and the establishment of aspects such as chronology and authorship.[37] At the first level one must locate and identify materials to study, be they written, printed, or oral; such a task may be difficult and depend on factors outside literature in its completion. Written and printed works must then be edited for readability; this task, which requires "lucky guesswork", entails deciphering illegible parts in the material, classifying it, and identifying possible changes made by scribes (and thus bringing the material closer to its "author's own").[39] Meanwhile, the second level may require greater initiative from the one studying a work; it involves, among other things, selection of what should be published, how it is best arranged in a collection, the establishment of chronology and authorship through internal and external evidence, and the provision of proper annotation and commentary.[36]
A young woman, looking to her right and leaning
In discussing how literature does not necessarily reflect an author's experiences, Wellek and Warren quote the actress Ellen Terry: if Shakespeare wrote only what he knew, he "must have been a woman".[40]

Section 3: The Extrinsic Approach to the Study of Literature[edit]

The third section consists of five chapters discussing various elements extrinsic to works of literature, such as biography, psychology, social milieu, ideas, and other arts; this is opposed to elements intrinsic to a work, which are explored in Section 4.[16] They write that research into extrinsic elements often results in an attempt to establish some causality between the extrinsic elements and a work. Although "[n]obody can deny that much light has been thrown on literature by a proper knowledge of the conditions under which it has been produced", such studies "can never dispose of problems of description, analysis, and evaluation of an object such as a work of literary art."[41]
Wellek and Warren describe three views of a biographical approach, of which only one – the biographical aspects relating to the production of a work – can be of use;[42] this use, however, is limited. They reject the views that works accurately reflect the author's life or that the author's life must be understood in order to understand a particular work.[43]According to Wellek and Warren, works may indeed reflect the author's experiences, but they may also reflect an author's hopes and dreams, or literary tradition and convention, and as such are "not a document for biography".[44] Likewise, an understanding of personal style (what makes a work "Miltonic", "Keatsian", "Shakespearean", or "Virgilian") does not rely on knowledge of the author's life. They conclude that "it seems dangerous to ascribe to [biography] any real critical importance", and that such approaches, if undertaken at all, should be done with a "sense" of the distinctions outlined above.[45]
Wellek and Warren consider analysis of characters the only legitimate application of psychological analysis in literary study. Such an analysis, however, they find lacking on its own merits: individual characters do not fit psychological theories of the time they are written. Works which are true to certain psychological theories, meanwhile, are not necessarily better. Thus, they question the value of looking for psychological "truth" in how a work is presented.[46] Additionally they outline and critique psychological theories that have been used to analyze authors[47] and the creative process.[48]
A man in formal dress, looking forward
Wellek and Warren note that Coleridge's work helped bring Neoplatonistic views to England.[49]
Wellek and Warren write that literature is ultimately a social institution as several aspects of it are created or influenced through social conventions and norms. They reject a more specific understanding of social realities in literature.[50] An author, for example, is a social being, raised and shaped by society and is in a dialectic relationship with the audience: the audience provides recognition and an income, and the author shapes audiences' tastes and behavior.[51] Intrinsic elements of the work, and indeed the "realization of certain aesthetic values", can reflect contemporary society and its attitudes.[52]Literature does not, however, "correctly" reflect society or life,[50] and may exhibit little connection.[52] As such, "social truth" should not become an artistic value of its own right, and literature should not be thought of as a "substitute for sociology or politics".[53]
Wellek and Warren note arguments that literature is a form of philosophy or, alternatively, that it is devoid of such ideas. They reject extreme versions of these arguments. They write that "a knowledge of the history of philosophy and of general ideas" will be valuable for a researcher.[54]However, they note that philosophical ideas may not have been consciously included in a work. Instead, they agree with the German scholar Rudolf Unger that "literature expresses a general attitude toward life, that poets usually answer, unsystematically, questions which are also themes of philosophy", in a manner that differs over time.[55] They outline attempts at classifying these ideas, including through Weltanschauung ("world view") and Geistesgeschichte ("time spirit"), before showing shortcomings in these systems.[56] They then write that students of literature, an art which may (but need not) parallel philosophical development, should focus on how ideas enter the work.[57] Wellek and Warren argue that a work does not necessarily become better with more philosophical content.[58]
Wellek and Warren write that the relationship between literature and other forms of art, such as architecture, sculpture, music, or visual art, is "highly various and complex". For example, literature may inspire the other art forms, or vice versa.[59] A work of literature may also attempt to have the same effect as another art, through visualization, musicality, or other techniques. However, literature remains a separate art form, and effects found within are conveyed imperfectly. The emotions triggered by a work, or the intentions or theories behind it, will likewise not completely parallel those of another art form;[60] individual forms of art have also "evolved" differently.[61] Instead, Wellek and Warren suggest that works of art, like literature, can only be truly understood by looking at the works of art themselves and not their extrinsic aspects.[62] A comparison between literature and another art form, thus, is secondary to establishing "outlines of strictly literary evolution".[61]

Section 4: The Intrinsic Study of Literature[edit]

This section, almost twice the size of the others, consists of eight chapters regarding various elements intrinsic to works of literature.[16]Wellek and Warren write that starting an analysis from elements intrinsic to the work is "natural and sensible", given that "only the works themselves justify all our interest" in extrinsic issues.[63] They outline different definitions of literature, including as artifacts, sequences of sounds pronounced when reading, the experiences of the reader or author, or the "sum of all past and possible experiences" (alternatively "the experience common to all the experiences") related to a work. All these understandings they find lacking.[64] Instead they suggest that literature is a "potential cause of experiences" consisting of a system of stratified norms – implicit in the work – which can only be partially realized by the reader;[65] it is neither purely material, mental, nor ideal, nor is it static or bereft of value.[66]
A man holding a pen and looking to his left
Among the works Wellek and Warren quote when discussing meter is Alexander Pope's An Essay on Man.[67]
Wellek and Warren consider patterns of sound as inherent to the text; these must be analyzed while keeping the meaning (or general emotional tone) in mind. They suggest two different aspects of sound systems: sounds in isolation, and sounds in relations with others. The sounds in isolation are used in a work establish a euphony or orchestration – a sound aesthetic which may be pleasing or harsh – while the relational aspect "may become the basis of rhythm and meter".[68] Regarding euphony, Wellek and Warren discuss issues of classification, rhyme, onomotopeia, and the "physiognomy" of sounds as part of orchestration.[69] Of rhythm they explore varying definitions, applications, typology, and artistic value.[70] They then discuss theories of meter and their shortcomings, noting that the metric foundation differs between languages and stressing that meaning should not be divorced from meter.[71]
Language, meanwhile, they describe as "quite literally the material of the literary artist"; although a work is influenced by language, the writer's style, the use of communicative language, may influence language.[72] Rather than use a work to study linguistic history, they recommend examining works through stylistics, which in literature they define as "the study of a work of art or a group of works which are to be described in terms of their aesthetic function and meaning".[73] Such studies can be done either as a search for a "total meaning" or a "sum of individual traits".[74] Ideally, such a study should "establish some unifying principle, some general aesthetic" in a work or genre, although some may be more difficult than others.[75] As such, they reject stylistic studies which focus mainly on "peculiarities of style" or which are linked to extrinsic elements.[75]
For other understandings of meaning, Wellek and Warren suggest a look at the sequence of image, metaphor, symbol, and myth, which they consider making up the "central poetic structure" of a work.[76] In turns, they outline various historical definitions of the terms – which at times overlap – before writing that most of these theories have treated the sequence as "detachable parts of the works in which they appear."[77]This Wellek and Warren refuse, instead arguing that "the meaning and function of literature [i]s centrally present in metaphor and myth".[77]They show that the dominant form of figurative language shifts over time[78] before overviewing two diverging typologies of metaphor, that of Henry W. Wells and Hermann Pongs.[79] They finally discuss several aspects of "practical criticism" based on poetic language and its underlying assumptions. They reject approaches which attempt to understand the author through his or her words or which attempt to understand figurative language alone; instead, it should be studied not in isolation but as "an element in the totality, the integrity, of the literary work".[80]
After reiterating their views of the relationship between reality and literature, Wellek and Warren write that narrative fiction takes place in its own "worlds", consisting of five codeterminant elements: narrative structure, characters, setting, world-view, and tone. The latter two are discussed in the following chapter.[81] They define the narrative structure as built around a pattern of dialog and description, and various concepts related to narrative; these include time within a work, narrative points of view and voices, major types, plot, devices, and pacing.[82] This is followed by a discussion of characterization, involving modes, types, and typologies, then setting (the environment in a work).[83] This world can serve as a basis for analysis and judgment of a work.[81] Although they focus on the "world" in narrative fiction, drama shares similar aspects.[84]
A man sitting and inscribing
Wellek and Warren proscribe a more specific understanding of genre than Aristotle's poetry, prose, and drama.
Wellek and Warren consider genres as influencing "any critical and evaluative ... study".[85] All works of literature can be so classified, although the genres themselves are (presumably) not fixed. After outlining a brief history of the "ultimate" genres as understood by Aristotle (poetry, prose, and drama), they show such an understanding as "scarcely promising of objective results" and overly prescriptive; they also reject several alternative theories of genre.[86] Instead, they suggest that genres should be understood descriptively, as based on the "outer form" (meter, structure) and the "inner form" (attitude, tone, purpose), with the "outer form" emphasized.[87] Wellek and Warren consider genres to be continually shifting, with good writers conforming to but ultimately expanding them.[88]
According to Wellek and Warren, evaluation of literary work should be done based on the work's own nature, divorced from an author's practical or scientific intent. They reject evaluation based on extra-literary content, writing instead that literature – like all fine art – will provide an "aesthetic experience" which can be judged.[89] They note various criteria used to identify "good" literature, rejecting Russian formalism's criterion of defamiliarization and similar understandings for one based on the diversity of materials amalgamated within a work.[90]They reject a static hierarchy or generationalist understanding of literary greats. Instead, they suggest that every work's rank changes when a new work is introduced and that values within are "really, or potentially, present in the art object".[91] They note a dialectic relationship between evaluating and critically analyzing literature.[92] This ties genre theory to the history of literature.[93]
Wellek and Warren – disapproving of contemporary histories of literature – opine that a history of literature is possible and should be based on elements intrinsic to works. Such a history should describe the development of "[t]he process of interpretation, criticism, and appreciation" or trace the development of works in small and large groups before tying it to universal literature.[93] This "historical evolution" of related yet individual events they tie to "variable schemes of values" which must be "abstracted from history itself."[94] They suggest numerous ways in which this can be accomplished, including identifying the development of values, traits, forms, themes, and motifs.[95] Periodization, they write, should not be based on chronological boundaries, but a "time section dominated by a system of literary norms, standards, and conventions, whose introduction, spread, diversification, integration, and disappearance can be traced" which must be extracted from history, with boundaries marked by both internal and external changes.[96] They close the chapter by stating that existing methods are "clumsy" and that a new ideal and methods of literary history is necessary.[97]

Section 5: The Academic Situation[edit]

The final section of the book, removed in later editions, consists of a single chapter regarding the study of literature.[16] Wellek and Warren bemoan that literary students are "offered no wider choice than between the 'historical method' ... and dilettantism", supporting instead a critically oriented literary scholarship.[98] After finding faults with the literary scholarship in England, Germany, France, and Russia, Wellek and Warren suggest that the US is poised to start a new era in scholarship.[98] They note that this opportunity may, however, be lost in a conflict between those advocating change and the inertia (including persons defending the status quo) in American literary studies and institutions.[99]
Rather than maintain the system of having scholars specialized in certain time periods and authors, Wellek and Warren push for scholars who have mastered certain approaches and thought patterns, preferably those who are from a literary background. They also recommend "sharper distinction between the teacher and the scholar", allowing some individuals to devote their careers to research and not teaching.[99] They emphasize a need for fluency in several modern languages rather than an understanding of the classical ones;[99] this coincides with their urge to establish departments teaching comparative literature.[100] They recommend the teaching of literary methods and theories in combination with periods and authors, with a retooling of the doctoral dissertation procedures.[101]

Theoretical borrowings[edit]

Theory of Literature was influenced by Russian formalism, a school of thought which sought to examine literature (or, more precisely, what formalist-turned-structuralist Roman Jakobson's termed literariness[102]) as an autonomous body,[103] and the American New Criticism, which likewise denied external influences.[104] The book borrowed formalism's concepts of an aesthetic function and dominance of different elements of language.[105] Unlike Russian formalism, however, Wellek and Warren's theory recognized the possibility of factors outside the work being studied, although Wellek and Warren continued to emphasize aspects within the work itself.[105] Also unlike their forerunners, Wellek and Warren saw aesthetic value as not the defamiliarization of the mundane, but an interaction among the strata derived from Roman Ingarden's work: the phonological (sound) level at the base, then semantic (meaning), and the "world" created by literature. This last strata they divided into paradigms and "metaphysical qualities", the level which a reader contemplates.[106][107] They did not, however, accept Ingarden's teachings as a whole, writing that Ingarden "analyze[d] the work of art without reference to values", a system which they found untenable.[108]
Wellek and Warren's concept of aesthetics borrowed from the writings of Immanuel Kant, implying that a specific "aesthetic realm" was autonomous within the work and required a certain perspective to properly understand;[109] they emphasize this with a quote from the neo-Kantian philosopher and literary critic Eliseo Vivas, that beauty is a "character of some things ... present only in the thing for those endowed with the capacity and the training through which alone it can be perceived".[110] Meanwhile, their depiction of a dynamic scale of values, as opposed to an anarchical one, is a reimagining of perspectivism, which Wellek and Warren define as "recogniz[ing] that there is one poetry, one literature, comparable in all ages, developing, changing, full of possibilities".[111][112] They explicitly denounce absolutism and relativism.[112]

Publication[edit]

Theory of Literature was published by Harcourt, Brace, and Company in December 1948, with a copyright notice dated 1942, 1947, and 1949.[113][114] Wellek notes that 1942, often quoted as a year of publication in Europe, is in fact when his article "The Mode of Existence of a Literary Work of Art" was published in The Southern Review; the article was reused as a chapter of Theory of Literature, leading to the inclusion of the year 1942.[113] Several other works by Wellek and Warren had been adapted for Theory of Literature.[20]
Translations of Theory of Literature began soon after it was published;[15] by 2010 the work had been translated into more than twenty languages,[115] including Spanish, Korean, Hebrew, and Hindi.[116] Two new editions were issued, first in 1956 then in 1962.[20]These new editions included updated bibliographies and clarified points; the last chapter, "Study of Literature in the Graduate School", was removed beginning in the second edition as Wellek and Warren considered the reforms suggested within already accomplished in several places.[17] By 1976 Wellek was of the opinion that the book required updating, but asked rhetorically "who can master the astonishing and bewildering literature on theory which since [1949] has been produced in many countries?" and noted that he and Warren were busy with their own projects.[113]

Reception[edit]

Academic reception of Theory of Literature was mixed. The philologist Helmut Hatzfeld, reviewing shortly after the book's release, described Theory of Literature as "radical in its viewpoint, rich in ideas and bibliographical material, poised in its judgment of other approaches to literature"[117] as well as a "landmark in literary studies."[118] Although Hatzfeld agreed with Wellek and Warren's main points, he thought it lacking in references to theories and literature from the Romance languages[119] and concrete interpretations.[120] William Troy, writing in The Hudson Review, echoed the sentiment, stating that, although the book was "unusually difficult" to read,[121] he felt "unqualified agreement with the main position".[122] He expected that the book would not succeed with "anyone ungifted from birth with some susceptibility to ... 'intrinsic' elements", a group which he believed comprised the majority of those teaching literature in the US.[122]Seymour Betsky, writing in Scrutiny, praised the book's summary and adjucation; he wrote that it was "in its way impressive", a "tour de force" which would "usher in a new era".[123] However, Betsky felt that the book lacked a "controlling purpose" and that it neglected to emphasize the need to differentiate between "the cheap commercial appeal and the genuine" literature.[124]
Edward G. Ballard, reviewing for The Journal of Philosophy, found the treatment lacking, with major terms left undefined and much of the book providing synopses of other writers' theories; he conceded, however, that it convincingly showed that "the intellectual study of literature qua literature has just begun".[125] In The Kenyon Review, Vivas wrote that the book's discussion of the relation between literary criticism and scholarship "leaves nothing to be desired", providing a "well balanced" look at the major points;[126] he found that no other such work existed in English at the time.[127] Vivas opined, however, that Wellek and Warren lacked a single, non-contradictory theory to use as a base for their conclusions.[126] Kemp Malone, reviewing for Linguistics, discussed three chapters on elements of literature related to linguistics. He considered these to provide "food for thought" for linguists and suggested that Wellek was well-versed in linguistics for a professor of literature, despite misusing several terms common in the discipline.[128]
Newton Arvin, writing in the Partisan Review, found Theory of Literature to excessively indulge in formalism and expressed concern that the idea of literary history may have "gone into the discard once and for all".[15]Benjamin found the book not something new, but a final assertion of the dominance of New Criticism in literary theory, a dominance which he considered untenable.[129] Rather than emphasize theory, he found that Theory of Literature was "ninety-nine parts a 'good offense' against its slain and buried foes"[130] with "exceptionally lucid and authoritative" discussions of literary problems.[14] Scaglione opined that Theory of Literature's plain, imprecise language had introduced numerous inconsistencies within its theoretical framework;[131] he also stated that the book led readers to believe they were approaching an understanding of literature without ever reaching the core essence of the subject.[132]
Ingarden, who believed his theories the basis of Wellek and Warren's arguments, considered himself inadequately credited and took offense with the attribution of his ideas to "pure phenomenologists".[133] He also stated that they had misrepresented his views.[133] George Grabowicz, prefacing his translation of Ingarden's The Literary Work of Art, suggested that Theory of Literature was "instrumental" in spreading Ingarden's ideas.[134]

Legacy[edit]

At the time of publication Wellek and Warren considered Theory of Literature unparalleled in English-language publications,[105] an attempt to unite literary theory, criticism, history, and scholarship.[13] Although they noted a similarity to existing German and Russian works, the authors considered those earlier works "eclectic" and "doctrinaire", respectively.[105] Ballard writes that Theory of Literature was published during a time of increasing focus on the art of literature, rather than its underlying philosophy.[135]
In an academic biography of Wellek, Michael Holquist of the University of Columbia writes that Theory of Literature established Wellek's reputation as a literary scholar[136] for the next three decades.[2] The book proved to be Wellek's only "book-length scholarly manifesto",[136] a format which Holquist credits to Warren's influence.[137] Wellek's other works were essays on literary theory and criticism which, even though bound in a single volume, did not provide a single coherent manifesto.[137] Wellek would continue to use the theories contained in Theory of Literature into the late 1980s.[138]
The book was used to teach literary theory at universities beginning not long after publication[15] and remained dominant into the mid-1960s,[102] at which time an increasingly heterogeneous academia questioned the universal value of literature; literary theorist Terry Eagleton finds that, after the 1960s, "it was no longer possible to take for granted what what literature was, how to read it, or what social functions it might serve".[139] Steven Mailloux describes Theory of Literature as crystallizing an American movement towards intrinsic literary criticism, as dominated by New Criticism,[140] while van Rees credits the book with popularizing a text-oriented interpretation.[141]Grabowicz writes that its importance for both American and general literary studies is "indisputable".[134] Writing in 1987, Jeremy Hawthorn described the book as an "excellent introductory study", despite extrinsic studies having become more dominant in literary criticism,[105] while Holquist found that the book could still "be usefully invoked" in literary debates of the early 21st century.[115] In an obituary of Wellek, Robert Thomas Jr. credited Theory of Literature with "introduc[ing] European scholarship to the United States" and establishing a framework for comparative literature studies in the United States.[142]
The theoretical positions promulgated in Theory of Literature have generally been criticized by later writers. Van Rees, for example, considers Wellek and Warren's distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic aspects of literature to be too sharply drawn, leading to the two aspects becoming binary opposites.[143] Holquist notes that this distinction proceeds from a different understanding of literature. He writes that Wellek's school of thought considered literature as a "unified subject" with definite boundaries which could be mastered,[115] while more recent scholarship has rendered "[t]he very identity of literature as an object of study ... no longer clear."[144]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b Drake 1996, pp. 851–854.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Holquist 2010, p. 163.
  3. Jump up^ Makaryk 1993, p. 484.
  4. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, p. 169.
  5. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, pp. 166, 168.
  6. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, p. 170.
  7. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 68.
  8. Jump up^ NYT 1986, Austin Warren.
  9. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 69.
  10. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 71.
  11. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 72.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek 1976, pp. 73–74.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. v.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Benjamin 1953, p. 427.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Scaglione 1958, p. 400.
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. ix–x.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Scaglione 1958, p. 408.
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. vi.
  19. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 73.
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b c van Rees 1984, p. 504.
  21. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 8–10.
  22. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 3.
  23. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 5–8.
  24. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 11–14.
  25. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 528.
  26. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 506.
  27. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 507.
  28. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 20–27.
  29. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 28.
  30. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 29–31.
  31. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 33–35.
  32. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 36.
  33. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 38–41.
  34. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 41.
  35. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 41–43.
  36. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 54–58.
  37. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 49.
  38. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 60–62.
  39. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 50–52.
  40. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 73.
  41. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 65.
  42. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 67–68.
  43. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 69.
  44. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 70–72.
  45. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 73–74.
  46. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 86–88.
  47. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 75–79.
  48. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 81–85.
  49. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 111.
  50. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 89–90.
  51. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 91–98.
  52. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 100–104.
  53. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 106.
  54. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 107–109.
  55. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 111–112.
  56. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 113–118.
  57. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 120–121.
  58. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 122–123.
  59. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 124–126.
  60. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 124–127.
  61. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 135.
  62. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 129–131.
  63. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 139.
  64. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 141–150.
  65. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 151–152.
  66. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 157.
  67. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 159–176.
  68. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 159–160.
  69. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 161–164.
  70. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 165–167.
  71. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 168–176.
  72. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 177–178.
  73. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 180–183.
  74. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 184.
  75. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 185–189.
  76. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 190.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 191–198.
  78. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 199–204.
  79. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 205–213.
  80. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 214–218.
  81. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 219–222.
  82. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 223–227.
  83. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 228–229.
  84. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 234.
  85. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 235.
  86. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 236–239, 245.
  87. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 241–242.
  88. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 244.
  89. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 249–252.
  90. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 253–255.
  91. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 257–258.
  92. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 262.
  93. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 263–266.
  94. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 267–268.
  95. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 269–273.
  96. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 274–280.
  97. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 282.
  98. ^ Jump up to:a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 285–288.
  99. ^ Jump up to:a b c Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 289–293.
  100. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 297.
  101. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 294.
  102. ^ Jump up to:a b Holquist 2010, p. 172.
  103. Jump up^ Makaryk 1993, p. 53.
  104. Jump up^ Makaryk 1993, p. 120.
  105. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Parrinder 1993, pp. 135–136.
  106. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 516.
  107. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 529.
  108. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, p. 175.
  109. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 512.
  110. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 524.
  111. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 35.
  112. ^ Jump up to:a b van Rees 1984, p. 519.
  113. ^ Jump up to:a b c Wellek 1976, p. 75.
  114. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. iv.
  115. ^ Jump up to:a b c Holquist 2010, p. 165.
  116. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 74.
  117. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 277.
  118. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 281.
  119. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 280.
  120. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 278.
  121. Jump up^ Troy 1950, p. 619.
  122. ^ Jump up to:a b Troy 1950, p. 620.
  123. Jump up^ Betsky 1949, p. 260.
  124. Jump up^ Betsky 1949, p. 261.
  125. Jump up^ Ballard 1951, pp. 109–110.
  126. ^ Jump up to:a b Vivas 1950, p. 162.
  127. Jump up^ Vivas 1950, p. 165.
  128. Jump up^ Malone 1950, pp. 311–313.
  129. Jump up^ Benjamin 1953, p. 424.
  130. Jump up^ Benjamin 1953, p. 425.
  131. Jump up^ Scaglione 1958, p. 402.
  132. Jump up^ Scaglione 1958, p. 404.
  133. ^ Jump up to:a b Ingarden & Grabowicz 1979, pp. lxxix–lxxxiv.
  134. ^ Jump up to:a b Ingarden & Grabowicz 1979, p. lxiii.
  135. Jump up^ Ballard 1951, p. 108.
  136. ^ Jump up to:a b Holquist 2010, p. 164.
  137. ^ Jump up to:a b Holquist 2010, p. 176.
  138. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 505.
  139. Jump up^ Eagleton 2008, p. 191.
  140. Jump up^ Mailloux 1984, p. 51.
  141. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 501.
  142. Jump up^ Thomas 1995, René Wellek.
  143. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 510.
  144. Jump up^ Bernheimer 1995, p. 2, quoted in Holquist (2010, p. 166)

References[edit]


"Austin Warren". New York Times. August 22, 1986. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
Ballard, Edward G. (February 1951). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek: Austin Warren". The Journal of Philosophy. 48 (4): 108–110. doi:10.2307/2021441. JSTOR 2021441. (subscription required)
Benjamin, Herbert S. (1953). "Criticism in Reverse". In Bixler, Paul Howard. The Antioch Review Anthology: Essays, Fiction, Poetry, and Reviews from the Antioch Review. Cleveland: World Publishing. pp. 424–428. ISBN 978-0-8369-1782-6.
Bernheimer, Charles (1995). "Introduction". Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-8018-5004-2.
Betsky, Seymour (September 1949). "The New Antiquarianism". Scrutiny. 17 (3): 260–264.
Parrinder, Patrick (1993). "Having Your Assumptions Questioned". In Bradford, Richard. The State of Theory. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-07323-3.
Drake, Robert (1996). "Continuity, Coherence, Completion". Mississippi Quarterly. 49 (4): 851–854.
Eagleton, Terry (2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-5447-5.
Hatzfeld, Helmut (Summer 1949). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek; Austin Warren". Comparative Literature. 1 (3): 277–281. doi:10.2307/1769174. JSTOR 1769174. (subscription required)
Holquist, Michael (2010). "Remembering René Wellek". Comparative Critical Studies. 7.2 (3): 163–178. doi:10.3366/E1744185410001047. (subscription required)
Ingarden, Roman; Grabowicz, George G. (translator) (1979). "Translator's Introduction". The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation of the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Language. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 978-0-8101-0537-9.
Mailloux, Steven (1984). Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-9285-3.
Makaryk, Irene Rima, ed. (1993). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-6860-6.
Malone, Kemp (April–June 1950). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek; Austin Warren". Linguistics. 26 (2): 311–313. JSTOR 410075. (subscription required)
van Rees, C. J. (December 1984). "'Theory of literature' viewed as a conception of literature: On the premises underlying Wellek and Warren's handbook". Poetics. 13 (6): 501–533. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(84)90021-4. (subscription required)
Scaglione, Aldo (May 1958). "'Theory of Literature' (2d ed.), by René Wellek and Austin Warren (Book Review)". Romance Philology. 11 (4): 400–408.
Thomas Jr., Robert McG. (November 16, 1995). "René Wellek, 92, a Professor of Comparative Literature, Dies". New York Times.
Troy, William (Winter 1950). "Limits of the Intrinsic". The Hudson Review. 2 (4): 619–621. doi:10.2307/3847717. JSTOR 3847717. (subscription required)
Vivas, Eliseo (Winter 1950). "Theorists without Theory". The Kenyon Review. 12 (1): 161–165. JSTOR 4333129. (subscription required)
Wellek, René (1976). "Collaborating with Austin Warren on Theory of Literature". In Simon, Myron; Gross, Harvey. Teacher & Critic: Essays By and About Austin Warren. Los Angeles: Plantin Press. pp. 68–75. OCLC 3023887.
Wellek, René; Warren, Austin (1949). Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company. OCLC 1599846.
External links[edit]
List of scholarly reviews of Theory of Literature

Posted by at

2017/02/10

The Ecological Indian: Myth and History: Shepard Krech III: 9780393321005: Amazon.com: Books

The Ecological Indian: Myth and History: Shepard Krech III: 9780393321005: Amazon.com: Books




Top Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 starsThought-provoking, though not perfectBy Bortukan on April 20, 2000
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
In this book, Krech sets out to contradict popular perceptions of Native Americans as perfect beings living in harmony with their environments. This doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do at first, but the author clearly states that he feels such images are not only inaccurate generalizations based on biased, outdated European stereotypes, but are dehumanizing in their suggestion that native people are "natural" animals rather than "cultural" humans. He goes on to present a number of case studies showing situations in which Native Americans were indeed cultural humans not living in perfect ecological balance with their surroundings. His treatment of the archaeological evidence is pretty thorough and unbiased. His historical case studies, while relying a bit heavily on potentially biased historic records by White settlers, remain fairly convincing examples of situations in which Native Americans were not perfect conservationists. Unfortunately, after this array of case studies it can be easy to forget that Krech's stated reasons for examining them were to present Native Americans as active human beings rather than passive stereotypes. Instead, readers can end up with a negative feeling about Native American land use practices in general or about Krech in particular, as the reviews below point out. In spite of these flaws, however, the book does raise interesting questions about how perceptions of Native Americans are constructed (both by native people themselves and by others) and about how we should approach environmental issues (including our definition of a "natural" environment) we grapple with today. His writing is clear and issues are presented in a fairly understandable way for a general audience, not just dusty academic types. Although you may not agree with all of the book's conclusions, the issues it raises make it very worthwhle reading material for anyone interested in environmental impact and Native Americans in the past and today.Comment 76 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? YesNo Report abuse

3.0 out of 5 starsMixed BagBy E. N. Anderson VINE VOICE on February 25, 2000
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Earlier customer reviews have tended to comment on bias. Most of the book is actually very fair, particularly the first few chapters; the treatment of Paul Martin's "Pleistocene overkill" hypothesis is exemplary. But the last couple of chapters are indeed rather biased, and read perhaps more "anti-Indian" than Dr. Krech intended. For example, Dr. Krech makes it sound as if the buffalo jump was a common, regular thing--the Indians drove a few million buffalo over a cliff every time they wanted a light lunch. Actually, archaeology and common sense both suggest that a big jump episode was rare. Try herding buffalo on foot and you'll understand. And Krech takes an extreme position in re the Indians' tendency to kill beaver; most authorities agree that beaver were more or less conserved until the white trappers got into the act. Certainly, there were lots of beaver, and not just in eastern Canada (the area he considers). Over a million beaver were trapped out of the southwestern US in the 1830s and 1840s, in spite of very dense Indian settlement then and earlier. The first 5 or 6 chapters would provoke little reasonable disagreement, but the last 2 or 3 would provoke (or are provoking) increasingly acrimonious debate among the learned. Suffice it to say that if you got the message that the Native Americans were not always models of selflessness, but were ordinary (if sensible) human beings, you're right, and this is probably what Dr. Krech intended. If you got the message that the Native Americans were bloodthirsty savages who killed wantonly, you're wrong. I hope and trust Dr. Krech did not mean that, but he does quote-at length and with apparent favor--a lot of racist 19th-century writers who did mean that.1 Comment 56 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? YesNo Report abuse

3.0 out of 5 starsA much-needed perspective - important and thought-provoking, if flawed.By Jacquelyn Gill on September 5, 2006
Format: Paperback
There is no doubt that Shepard Krech offers a much-needed volume on the subject of American Indian ecological impact, and by the end of the powerful introduction he has convinced the reader that this may well be the definitive volume on the subject. The intro is a strong and compelling case for the re-evaluation of a popular stereotype, and should itself be included in the syllabi of courses on anthropology and ecology alike. The thesis presented in The Ecological Indian is a simple one (though by no means without controversy): the traditional image of the Indian living in non-invasive harmony with the land is not only false, but in fact does a disservice to those of aboriginal heritage by perpetuating the falsehood of the primitive noble savage.

Krech's writing shines when he wears the hat of an environmental philosopher and an anthropologist, and so it is with great disappointment that I made the transition to the actual substance of the book's thesis. In some areas (particularly those more recent historically documented cases), Krech strongly underlines his case. In others, however, he falls unbelievably short where the data is almost more compelling. Most striking was the first chapter on the Pleistocene extinctions, which oddly begins the book with arguments against the human overkill hypothesis even in the face of very compelling evidence. He focuses too strongly on the mid-80's publications of Dr. Paul S. Martin, when much more recent work has come out regarding human hunting that was completely overlooked. This poor treatment weakend the impact of the powerful introduction, and was a lost opportunity for strong evidence about early human land impact.

Similarly, the chapter on fire made almost no mention of the paleoecological record of fossil charcoal or other pre-settlement fire histories. The chapter on the Hohokam was compelling, but would have been made stronger by the inclusion of other examples from the Southwest or even the Midwest. Krech's weakness with regards to the ancient record were obvious to someone in the field, but may not be so to those without a background in anthropology or North American paleoecology, and so readers could get an incomplete picture based on certain omissions. This could be easily corrected with future editions.

Krech's background is obviously stronger in the historical period, and the section on the colonial impressions of the North American "Eden" was perhaps the strongest in the book. Here the author makes the important point that, coming from the intensely modified landscape of Europe, even a moderately-modified North America would seem like a wilderness, particularly when those doing the reporting have commercial interests. The section on buffalo is likewise very strong, including striking descriptions of buffalo jumps and other clearly excessive tactics. Here Krech makes the case about an Indian ecology most strongly, reminding the reader that the Indian ecological theory included mythological elements that are simply not compatible with Western ecological theory, such as a never-ending source of buffalo from sacred lakes or caves. With an eternally replenished supply, why would there be a need for sustainable harvesting? Similar chapters on deer and beaver emphasize the influence of European markets on overhunting for trade goods. While these are quite compelling, the book drags here at times with repetitive lists of animals killed in different regions.

Critics have lambasted Krech for making an unfair comparison between colonial and industrial human impact and those of less technologically complex cultures, one that the author himself predicts and addresses in the book. His response is to point out that just because modern humans are more manipulative doesn't mean that the Indians didn't manipulate at all. An inherent aspect of his argument is the notion of what constitutes "ecological" behavior, and Krech makes an excellent (and much-welcome) distinction between the actual science of ecology and the popular notion of ecology as environmental stewardship.

Scholarly faults aside, readers accustomed to popular science may find the writing to be dry and at times bordering on tedious. However, the book is excellently referenced, particularly with regards to primary sources, and in spite of its tone the content is very accessible to non-scholars. Ultimately, The Ecological Indian is an important contribution to the field, if occasionally disappointing in its incomplete scholarship.

~ Jacquelyn Gill
Posted by at

The Ecological Indian. Myth and History.

H-Net Reviews

Shepard Krech, III. The Ecological Indian. Myth and History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999. vi + 318 pp. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-393-04755-4.

Reviewed by Adrian Tanner (Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland)
Published on H-AmIndian (April, 2001)

Recently a student told me he thought he was of aboriginal descent. I asked what group he was from, but he said he did not know, since none of his relatives identified themselves as aboriginal. However, he said he had always felt particularly close to nature, and so concluded he must be Native. As it happens, he could well have been since, starting about a century ago, some Newfoundland Mi'kmaq hid their ethnicity, even from their own children, to avoid discrimination. But what of his idea that being 'close to nature' is a mark of being of Native descent?

Sheppard Krech III's book The Ecological Indian sets out to probe the basis and historical validity of the idea that people of native descent are, and always have been, caring towards the environment, a characteristic commonly claimed by or attributed to them. With a series of empirical case studies he investigates whether their ideas and actions were always those of ecologists and conservationists. He finds that the Ecological Indian proposition is of doubtful validity, concluding that, for example, Indians needlessly killed many buffalo, set fires that got out of control, and over-exploited deer and beaver for their skins.

This book is handsomely produced, and well-written by a respected scholar who draws on an enormous quantity of interdisciplinary sources and diverse lines of thought. While, as will become clear below, I am sceptical about its thesis, the work covers many important issues and I, at least, found it instructive to trace the author's endeavour, despite the shortcomings, on which my review will concentrate.

In his Introduction, Krech examines the beginnings and development of the notion that Indians are by nature 'ecological'. Most of these sources are not aboriginal people, but the likes of Baron de Lahontan, James Fenimore Cooper and Ernest Thomas Seton, all drawing upon the 'Noble Savage' ideal. In fact only two aboriginal people are cited in this section -- the nineteenth century Dakota Sioux author Charles Eastman (Ohiyesa) and the Lakota holy man Black Elk (along with a cursory footnote allusion to Chief Seattle). Not until the book's Epilogue does the author turn his attention to self-attributions of the image by several native authors, most appearing after 1970, and often in the context of political disputes.

The bulk of the book consists of seven self-contained test cases, each of which deals with different groups, three of them involving prehistoric situations, and the other four historical ones. Each of these cases is well known to specialists, having been the subject of much scholarly controversy. Krech provides a detailed and generally even-handed review of these debates, along with additional data and his own conclusions.

In the first chapter Krech asks if over-hunting by Paleo-Indians was responsible for the extinctions of various large mammals during the Pleistocene era. He presents the position of Paul Martin, who concludes Paleo-Indian hunters caused these extinctions, along with that of his critics. However, both arguments seem to me based on a great deal of unwarranted speculation. While Krech is unconvinced by Martin's position, he is not sure that Paleo-Indians were entirely free of any responsibility. But, given the very distant lineage that may connect Paleo-Indians with modern aboriginal people, one wonders about the relevance of this case to the issue being addressed in this book.

The next case also seems to me to be of questionable relevance. Krech asks if the prehistoric Hohokam's irrigation practices caused salination of their fields, leading to their disappearance. He offers the contrasting views of two authors, Bernard Powel and Emil Haury. The issue between them is whether the Hohokam should be condemned for the ecological problems arising from their system of irrigation agriculture, or admired for its achievements, which are compared to the negative effects of more recent settlement by non-natives of this region of southern Arizona. Krech delves into the considerable complexities of the case, but does not resolve this unanswerable question, acknowledging that it is not known what finally happened to the Hohokam.

One aspect of The Ecological Indian is based on the notion that North American aboriginal people looked after their environment, so the first Europeans found the continent in an unspoiled condition. Krech's next chapter questions this. He notes that several authors have revised upward earlier prehistoric population estimates and, as a consequence, have increased their assessment of the post-contact population decline. Krech suggests that, apart from along the East Coast, many initial European reports of a pristine environment came after the aboriginal population had declined, so that the newcomers would have arrived in an environment that was no longer supporting its previous larger population. The land would have thus by then returned to the more natural state that the newcomers described. (In the next chapter he further discredits the idea of a 'pristine' proto-contact environment, suggesting that Europeans were predisposed to find the wilderness they described, regardless of evidence to the contrary.) But in the end his convoluted argument fails to offer any real indication of a pre-contact environment that was other than the pristine one the newcomers described.

In the next chapter, Krech asks whether the Indians were acting with environmental responsibility in their deliberate setting of forest and brush fires. The extensive literature on this topic shows that Indians in all parts of the continent used fire to modify their environment, serving a wide variety of purposes. While in some instances this was done to improve hunting, he shows that fires were also set during wars against trespassing groups, both whites and other Indians, and for communication with other Indians. Many authors believe they did so with sufficient skill that fire generally benefited the environment. But Krech refers to several settlers' anecdotes about Indian-set fires that got out of control. However, it does not seem to matter to Krech if such mistakes were by Indians in unfamiliar territory, due to post-contact dislocation.

In the last three chapters the author examines whether Indians over-hunted, respectively, the buffalo, the white-tailed deer and the beaver. All these species were used aboriginally for subsistence, and after contact they continued to be sources of subsistence food at the same time as they provided market commodities. Krech thinks the commercialisation of deer and beaver hides lead to their overexploitation, but he also believes Indians were wasting buffalo even when the species was being hunted only for subsistence.

For me, this chapter provides the book's most serious challenge to The Ecological Indian. While Indians had uses for every part of the buffalo, their practice of slaughtering whole herds, at a buffalo jump or in an enclosure, sometimes produced more carcasses than a group could possibly use. As a result, waste occurred. He documents instances of Indians leaving animals to rot, utilising only the cows, or taking only the tongues and the humps. However, the overkilling did not cause the extermination of the species, which only came after non-Indians and Metis hunted them commercially for fresh meat, pemmican and hides.

Krech proposes two 'religious' reasons for the earlier over-killing. It was believed (by the Piegan and Cree) that any buffalo that escaped while being rounded up in the hunt would warn other buffalo, who would then avoid hunters, so that it was necessary to chase and kill these escapees, whether they were needed or not. Other Indians (specifically the Cheyenne and Arapaho) believed that when hunters were unable to find buffalo it was because the animals had retreated to a land underneath a large lake, from which they would eventually reappear in endless numbers. Krech concludes that, given these beliefs, the Indians did not see overhunting as a cause of any shortage of animals or the need to conserve.

The next chapter concerns the white-tailed deer. Between about 1670 and 1800 the skins of these animals, previously the major subsistence species for Indians in the Southern and Eastern United States, became their main item of trade with Europeans. Deer were hunted in increasing numbers, in part, according to Krech, to satisfy the Indian's craving for alcohol. By the end of the period deer were scarce or locally absent, which Krech concludes was due to overhunting by Indians. The population did not recover until many years later.

While Krech acknowledges the trade in deer skins occurred during a period of intense disruption, he does not see that dislocation and warfare resulting from European settlement may have rendered the Indian's conservationist practices ineffective. Instead, as with the buffalo example, he explains the willingness to overkill deer by reference to the pre-Christian spiritual beliefs of the tribes of the region. He notes, for instance, that the Cherokee believed in the reincarnation of deer, some of them believing this could recur four or seven times. From this he concludes that conservation would have made no sense to them.

The final substantive chapter is about the beaver, an important subsistence food source for prehistoric northern Indians, and later a mainstay of the fur trade. Their sedentary existence made the species especially vulnerable to overhunting, particularly with the introduction of steel traps. Beaver eventually did become extinct in some regions such as New England, although generally in areas where they were never particularly numerous. For the subarctic Indian Krech blames overhunting for causing reported declines in beaver populations.

However, there were other factors Krech does not sufficiently take into account, like incursions by foreign Indians and cutthroat competition, that would have undermined local conservation efforts. Also, since beaver meat was eaten, they were harvested more intensely if other game were at the low end of their cycles of abundance, something neither Indians nor traders could control. Beavers were also subject to epidemic disease.

Krech explanation of the overhunting focuses on ideology, saying Northern Algonquians (i.e. forest Cree, Ojibway and Innu) only showed interest in "today's conservation ethics and practices" in the nineteenth century (p. 206). He notes that in this recent period Indians used family hunting territory to conserve beaver, while traders' tried to influence their ideas of conservation. However, Krech does not take adequate account of the evidence that Indians made their own strategic decisions.

Krech thinks Indian spiritual ideas account for their purported failure at beaver conservation. He says Algonquians believed the bones of animals were set aside to be reincarnated, so that they could not be over-hunted. Algonquian non-Christian religious ideas "apparently had nothing to do with waste and conservation of animal populations until recently" (p. 204). I, however, contend that Algonquian religious ideas support conservation strategies, by providing a moral basis for human-animal relations, beyond the pragmatic one. But these strategies also depend on their ability to control their lands.

Initially, the target for Krech's book seems to be the use by Madison Avenue and Hollywood of the Ecological Indian image. But in the Epilogue he sets his sights on modern Indians, both those who attribute to themselves ecological sensitivity, mainly in the context of political fights over resource issues, and those who in his view engage in environmentally questionable activities, despite the image. He sees a disjunction between the Indian's environmentalist image and their historical practices. "Their actions, while perfectly reasonable in light of their own beliefs and larger goals, were not necessarily rational according to the premises of Western ecological conservation." (p. 212).

In his analysis Krech privileges Indian religious ideologies over their environmental knowledge. Virtually any game shortage is used to challenge the Ecological Indian, as if, for the image to be genuine, they would have had to avoid all environmental uncertainty. Anthropologically, Krech's view of Indians seems curiously old-fashioned, presenting them as poorly adapted, without practical knowledge of sustainable production, motivated instead by irrational beliefs. By contrast, most ethnographic field studies of non-western peoples by scientifically trained participant-observers conversant in the local language reveal adaptations that involve rigorously empirical knowledge of the environment, however nonrational their other beliefs may appear.

There is unintended irony in the author's evaluation of Indian actions against "the premises of Western ecological conservation". As Krech himself notes, the modern rhetoric of aboriginal environmentalism involves a critique of North American society over environmental issues. From the start the image of the Ecological Indian entailed a (sometimes-implicit) comparison and criticism of non-Indians. From the Noble Savage to the Ecological Indian, these are indictments of non-native society, particularly its treatment of the environment. In the societies where the premises of ecological conservation originated and where they are paid lip service, the record of successfully following them is less than inspiring. If Indians lacked these ideological principles, it is questionable if they fared any the worse without them. Given the comparative aspect implicit in the Ecological Indian image, I wonder why Krech did not frame the image's empirical tests by means of comparisons with the equivalent impact on the environment by the activities of the newcomers? Then he would not have just asked whether Indians were environmentally sensitive, but whether they were more or less environmentally sensitive than non-Indians.

Whether or not Indian groups historically acted with environmental responsibility, the contemporary claim that they are, by their nature and heritage, 'ecological' is also part of their counter-hegemonic political ideology. Another study that has looked for the origins of 'Mother Earth', a concept related to that of the Ecological Indian, concludes it first appeared in the context of nineteenth century aboriginal political discourses with whites (Gill 1987). Krech's data seem to concur with those of Gill that it was relatively recently and by comparison to whites that they began to explicitly attribute 'closeness to nature' to themselves.

Krech questions the Ecological Indian as a particular interpretation of the past. A more useful approach would show it to entail an essentializing of a socially constructed primordial identity. As such, it is an assertion of the group's collective self-identity based on a common past, real or imagined (or both), and serves to unite and unify. These are all features characteristic of ethnic group nationalist movements in general, found today in innumerable and multiplying discourses around sub-state ethnic identity (see, e.g. Wilmsen and McAllister 1996).

Krech gives this perspective passing recognition and acknowledges it is an illusion to privilege any one version of history as objective. Yet despite these admissions he thinks it more important to discredit the claim, asserting that "it seems unwise to assume uncritically that the image of the Ecological Indian faithfully reflects North American Indian behaviour at any time in the past." One of the reasons he gives for challenging the image is that it denies variations between Indian groups (p. 26). However, throughout his book he accepts at face value the idea of the homogenised pan-Indian as the subject of the image that he wants to test. Otherwise, he would have limited the results of each of the seven case studies to only the modern descendants of the respective tribal groups.

The test cases each draw on prehistoric or historic data from times when North American aboriginal people's most important identities were diverse among themselves and tribal. However, the image of the Ecological Indian is part of a more recently constructed unified pan-Indian identity. Today pan-Indian unity exists alongside tribal diversity, the one emphasising commonality while the other continues to recognize difference. Krech's test cases only take account of one side of this complex reality, and ultimately hardly seem relevant to the issue of invalidating a pan-tribal conception.

The kinds of claims made about ethnic identity are not appropriately treated as hypotheses put forward as historically verifiable, which is how Krech deals with the Ecological Indian. Whatever their self-conception, simply by being non-industrial Indians were comparatively 'ecological', at least if left to their own devices. However, this study missed the chance to contribute to an understanding of the image, for instance, by showing that if the Ecological Indian is a social construction, it was constructed partly by, and by reference to, the colonizers, as part of an ongoing political dialogue. The image of the Ecological Indian also asserts moral superiority, an understandable response of a relatively powerless group in the political context of struggles over land and resources. Unfortunately, Krech's failure to adequately take account of the political context of Indian environmental discourse means his book may play into the hands of reactionary and racist interests and prejudices opposed to aboriginal rights.

References

Gill, Sam D. 1987, Mother Earth. An American Story. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Wilmsen, Edwin N. and Patrick McAllister, 1996, The Politics of Difference. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Posted by at
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)