What is Textual Culture?

7/29/2019 What is Textual Culture?

1/9

Introduction: What Is Textual Culture?Author(s): Joe Bray and Ruth EvansReviewed work(s):Source: Textual Cultures, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Autumn, 2007), pp. 1-8Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30227909 .

Accessed: 26/05/2012 23:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Textual

Cultures.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30227909?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30227909?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress


2/9

IntroductionWhat is Textual Culture?

JoeBray and RuthEvans

IT IS NO EASY TASK TO INTRODUCE A NEW INTELLECTUALFIELD--"TEXTUALCULTURE"-at the same time as being wary of defining it too precisely. Thiscollection of essays had its genesis in a conference held at the University ofStirling in July 2005 to mark the inauguration of a new collaborative re-search group. The idea of Textual Culture originated with Bethan Benwell,Joe Bray, Adrian Hunter, and Stephen Penn as a way of bringing togethertheir diverse research interests and going beyond the usual disciplinary pro-tocols that structure academic departments and research in the UK andUS. It was also inspired by a sense of seeing what might emerge, preciselybecause-as we stated in the conference call for papers-"the future shapeof Textual Culture is still unknown".

Nevertheless, a kind of manifesto appears on the Stirling research group'swebsite:Textual Culture refers to the material processes and ideological forma-tions surrounding the production, transmission, reception, and regula-tion of texts. It studies the interactions between these processes andformations in order to show how texts get made and how they are un-derstood. It works within and across intellectual history, literary criti-cism, critical theory, linguistics and critical discourse analysis, historyof the book, and publishing-as-process. It does not have an allegianceto a single disciplinary area, and it contests the boundaries and tradi-tions of existing disciplinary categories.'

We are grateful o our colleaguesat Stirling,BethanBenwell,AdrianHunterandStephenPenn, ortheireditorial elpandadvice.1.TextualCulturewebsite:http://www.textual-culture.stir.ac.uk/lastaccessed20July2007).


3/9

2 1 JoeBrayandRuthEvansAmbitious in scope, this new enterprise seeks to workwith, but also to go

beyond, the recent disciplinaryshift that has brought together literarycriti-cism and history of the book-for so long opposed (the major landmark isLERERnd PRICE006). We have traveled a long way from 1927when R. B.McKerrowarguedthat "[t]hevirtue of bibliography[.. .] is its definiteness [...][I]ttherefore offers a very pleasant relief from critical investigations of themore 'literary'kind" (1927, 2). For McKerrow,bibliography/textualcriticism(the antecedent of "book history" and "history of the book")2is virtuously"definite"; iterary criticism, by implication, is disconcertingly open-ended.But the old distinction between the reassuringlybounded object of "scien-tific" study, the material "book",and the shifty and idealist literary "text",generating a plethoraof readings, is no longer tenable. If it was once the casethat, as Leah Price observes, "'book history' has come to stand for a materi-alist resistance to theory, to idealism, even to ideas", n other words, a resis-tance to interpretation, book history today does not replace "hermeneuticsby pedantry".Rather, it insists "that every aspect of a literaryworkbears in-terpretation - even, or especially, those that look most contingent" (PRICE2006, 10, 11).Textual Culture emphatically agrees with Price's statement. But it alsorecognizes that the literarywork is not the only type of text. Its "manifesto"points crucially to textual objects and practices that are not exclusively liter-ary: "linguistics [.. .1critical discourse analysis, [...] and publishing-as-pro-cess". And Textual Culture is interested in spoken as well as written texts(see BENWELL 2005). By including cultural practices, non-literary objectsand talk, including talk about texts, Textual Culture engages a broad disci-plinary agenda fromwhich it derives its critical edge. Like Donna Haraway'scyborg, Textual Culture is a hybridcreature:a bastardchild, unfaithful to itsorigins, and thereforecapable of constituting, in Haraway'swords,"animag-inative resource suggesting some very fruitful couplings" (HARAWAY991,150). These couplings bear exciting fruit in this issue, which is a mix of pa-pers from the 2005 conference and newly commissioned essays. No singleessay in this issue instantiates "Textual Culture".Rather, the essayswork cu-mulatively to put pressureon the categories of both book history and liter-ary criticism, but more importantly to extend the field into new areas,especially those that have been previously thought of as mutually exclusive.

2. On the distinction etweenBuchgeschichte,bookhistory"analyticdescription,withits roots n philology) nd"histoireulivre",history f the book" derivedfrom he Annaleschool), eeKUSKIN006,25.Butthisdistinction annotbe re-duced o a matter f Anglo-Saxon mpiricisms. Frenchtheory', or doesit dojustice,Kuskin rgues,o thestudyof booksorthestudyof literary istory.


4/9

Introduction 3

This extensionof the field scentralto the first hreeessays n this issue,whichdealwith periodizationKuskin),peechvs.writing(Syme),and cul-turalvalue (Frow). n his essay"'Theloadstarre f the English anguage':Spenser'sShepheardesalenderand the Constructionof Modernity",Wil-liam Kuskinconsiders a moment in literaryhistory-the fifteenth cen-tury-as it is refractedhrough he physicality f the bookand a densewebof textualallusions hat cohere around he term"loadestarre"guiding tar).Workingbackwards ndforwards romthe term's eference o Lydgate ndChaucer n E.K.'s reface o the Shepheardesalender,Kuskindemonstrateshow the wordand its material nscriptions mbodynotions of vernacularauthorshiphat confoundexistingmodelsofperiodization. ulturalauthor-ity is "notbifurcated crossmanuscript ndprinttechnologies,medievalormodernperiods,but derived romthe ongoingmanipulation f material ndintellectualaspectsof literaryproduction ccordingo the materialandin-tellectualpracticesof an overall extual culture".Literaryistory,hen,is"involute":tdoes notevolve"linearly utas a webof connections,a weavingthat recallsthe rootmeaningof the word text".Kuskin'sssaychallenges he epochalthinkingandevolutionarymodels hathaveheldswayas much n mediahistoryas in literary istory: rality eplacedbywriting,writingby print,andprintbydigital nscription; ax tabletsbyan-imalmembrane, aperandthe siliconchip;scrollbycodex,codexbyhyper-text. Rather, hereis a rangeof technologiesand material ormscompetingwith eachotheratanygiventime andplace(seePRICE002,38 and2006, 15).Kuskin'snnovation s to link thatcompetitivemediahistory o literary is-toryand to refigurehe fifteenthcenturynot as thebreak hat makesmoder-nity possiblebut asacomplexperiodof returnandrenewal, ontinuation nddenial, hatgivesbirthto "anewconceptofwriting".

HolgerSyme'sessay"The Lookof Speech" s similarly oncernedwith"conceptual lippages",ut in this case those betweenspeech, writingandprintin earlymodernEngland.Beginningwith an analysisof the "bande-roles"n earlymodern llustrations, ymeshowshowwritingandspeechdidnothaveconceptualparticularity t this time. Thishas been aneglectedas-pectof earlymodernEngland'shift fromorality o print:the period,Symeargues,s one when"therelativeauthority f writingandspeech,even theiridentityasdistinctmodesof language,underwent crisis".Byinvokingartanddrama,Syme pushesbeyondthe conjunctionofbookhistoryand liter-arycriticism o showhowspeechandwriting,performancendart,aremu-tually imbricatedduring the periodand not yet ranged in hierarchicalbinaries of speech/writing, presence/absence.This cultural moment is not a break with but a continuation of the medi-


5/9

4 1 Joe Bray and RuthEvanseval.Syme'sargument ecallsthe wordsof the Eagle n Chaucer'sHouseofFamewho explainsthat the speechpouringinto Rumor'sHouse assumesthe physical identityof its speaker:"'Hytwexeth lyke the same wight /Which that theword n erthespake, Behytclothed redorblack'" BENSON1987:HouseofFame,1076-8)."Redor black":he colorsof ink andrubrica-tion on the pageof a medievalmanuscript. peechtakes on corporeal orm-is "clothed",ikethe personwho uttered t - buttakesthe formtoo of let-terson the page.Ifspeechis somatic n the medievalandearlymodernpe-riod,then so too iswriting.In "ThePracticeof Value", ohnFrow'snterest ies less in the materialprocessesof writing han in "theregimesof value that governour textualtransactions". y itemizing he myriad udgments hat he makesduringasingle day,Frowplaceshimselfin the Renaissance raditionof ethical self-knowledge:NosceteipsumKnowthyself).Justas AlbrechtDtirer ook hisbodyas the subjectof his art,so Frow akes a dayin his life as the subjectofan ethicalenquiry nto the subject'sncounterwith culture.Hissubject s ajudgingsubject,homoestimans,whose identity is constitutedthroughthedaily practiceof value within different nstitutions: he university,he law,the culture ndustryand the personal,where the personal s no longer op-posedto the institutionbut is constitutedas an institution n its own right.There are fruitful inks here with culturalstudies' nterest n the anthropol-ogyof the "everyday",romMass-Observationn 1937 o JoeMoran'sQueu-ing orBeginnersMORAN005 and2007;DECERTEAU984).But Frowusesthe quotidianto challengethe "anti-interpretiveendencies" n culturalstudiesand literary tudies(and,by extension,book history),arguingthat"[j]udgments the inescapable orizonboth of work n the humanitiesandsocialsciences,andofeverydayife; t is builtdeepinto the processes ndin-stitutionsof textualculture".What Frow's ssaybringsto the idea of Textual Culture,then, is thequestionof value that is missingfromthe original"manifesto". aluesarecrucialin determiningwhich texts get circulatedand how they are regu-lated.Valuesarealso crucial n determining he fieldof TextualCultureit-self:why,for example,we constructbook history,discourseanalysisandliterarycriticism as separatedisciplines and range them hierarchically,rather han seeingthem asmutually nrichingandinvigorating.The final threeessaysn the issueall exploreways n which TextualCul-turecan seektogobeyond he discipline hat hasblossomedn the worldofAnglo-Americancriticism n the last few decadesand which, though it"owns up to a raft of aliases" (PRICE 006, 9), is most commonly known as"book history"or "thehistory of the book". While recognizing the substan-


6/9

Introduction1 5tial advances in methodologyand argument hat have been developedwithin the field,each contributor grees, n his or her own way,with D. F.McKenzie's itheringassessment f "textual riticism",nd the implicationsof its innocence of broader heoretical ssues:"Its ntellectualtimidityandmechanicalzeal,if they persist n the faceof such advances n other fields,are a guaranteeof imminent oblivion" 2002,209).In proposing hat Tex-tual Cultureexpands beyondthe sometimes"mechanical" roceduresof"bookhistory", ach essaydrawson methodologies nd insightsfrom areasof studythat mightnot appear mmediately elevant:mediaandcommuni-cation studies (Schroder),critiqueg.ne.tiqueand Frenchtheories of text(Bushell)andpatternrecognition Siskin).Each husattempts o openTex-tual Cultureup to new,even unexpectedcriticalapproaches,n the beliefthat these can help both to define its remitand to suggestways n which itresistsdefinition.In "MediaDiscourseAnalysis:ResearchingCulturalMeanings romIn-ception to Reception"KimSchroderstresses he "multidimensionality"fthe "communicative epertoires"f both mediaproducers nd consumers.He criticizesone of the mostpopularapproachesomediatexts,criticaldis-courseanalysis, or its belief that "discourse ractices",hat is, the circum-stancesofproduction ndreception,aresomehowmanifest n the text itself.In fact, Schrcderasserts,"themedia text as it appearson the newspaperpage,or on the TV screen,or on the website,revealsverylittle aboutthemultiple discursive constraints and opportunitiesaffecting,on the onehand, the teamof people producing t in the complexdivision of laborofthe contemporarymedia,and on the other hand the multiple nterpretiverepertories t workwhen the recipientsmakesense of the verbalandvisualfeaturesn contexts of everydayife".He argueshat both "encodingandde-coding discoursepractices"need to be examinedempirically, nd, takinginspiration romrecent work n mediastudies,proposes"aholistic,empiri-cal approach o media discourseanalysis", hichhe names"discourse th-nography". his approach,which involves"acarefulattention to textualdetailwith systematic ieldwork hatexplores he meaningprocessesof textproducers nd recipients",s then applied o a "responsibilityd"producedbythe oil companyBP in 1991.Schroder'snterviewswitha BPpublicrela-tionsmanagerandthirty-twoEnglishand Danish"recipients"f the adver-tisement confirm the "multidimensionalityf meanings which peoplegenerate romone particular d"and reinforce heneed to look beyondthemedia text itself for a properunderstandingof "socioculturalmeaningprocesses.

3.Fora similarly"ethnographic" pproach, ee BENWELL2005.


7/9

6 1 Joe Bray and RuthEvans

Schroder's ttentionto the extra-textual ontextsof productionandre-ceptionaddsadimension hathasoftenbeen missing romtraditional tud-ies in "thehistoryof the book".D. F. McKenzie's all in his landmark ssay"TypographyndMeaning:The CaseofWilliamCongreve" firstdeliveredat asymposiumn 1977) or"ageneral heorywhichwouldorderourinvesti-gationof authorialntention,its mediationand readerresponse n a com-prehensivedisciplinedway" 2002, 209) has only patchilybeen met in thepast thirty years.His beliefthat "textualcriticism"mustengagemorefullywith "developmentsn criticaltheory"(206) is evident however in SallyBushell'sessay"TextualProcessand the Denial of Origins".Bushellnotesthat "afull criticalengagementwith textualprocessand the coming-into-beingof the literaryworkhasnot yetoccurred n any systematicwaywithinAnglo-American cholarship".orher the Frenchcritique eine'tique,s de-velopedbyAlmuthGresillon,LouisHayandothers,offers"onlya partiallysatisfactorymodel for Anglo-Americanways forward". ts "empirically-grounded,methodologically-focused"pproachneeds to be supplemented,according o Bushell,by "theoriesof the text",especiallythose concernedwith duration and agency.Returningto Roland Barthes's eminal essay"FromWorkto Text"Bushellexplores he possibility hat "both writerandreaderpotentiallymovebetween a response o draftmaterialsasbothWorkand Text".While the writermight"beable at thesame time to know thatlanguageexistsoutsideandbeyondhis control(in an eternal now'),andyetexperience t asif it were he expression f apast thought",o too the readercomes to the draftmaterials f "textualprocess"with"fullknowledgeof theproductthat it will/ has alreadybecome".These "contradictory"tates ofknowingand not knowingarelinkedbyBushellto the Freudian onceptof"disavowal", hichin his laterwritingsrefers o "apsychicsplitwhich oc-curs within the ego when realityprovestoo much to take".Accordingtoher,this "doubled esponse"s whatgivestextualprocess"itspleasureanditspower".Bushell'sengagementwith the work of Barthes,Foucaultand Freud(amongothers) s evidenceof PeterD. McDonald'sbeliefthat "unexpectedintersections" anbefoundbetween"theapparently pposedenterprises ftheory and the historyof the book"(2006, 217).Regretting he fact that"the two enterprises ave, in theirverydifferentstrugglesorhegemony nthe academy,maintaineda resolutedistance from each other"(222),Mc-Donald urgesconsideration f "the variouspotential and actual connec-tions between these two modes of inquiry" 222).The task for "literaryhistoriography",he asserts, is to resist "efforts to reify theory or book his-tory",and "to addressthe question of literature in new interdisciplinary, per-


8/9

Introduction 7

hapsultradisciplinary, aysbymaking he most of the concepts,protocols,and sourcesboth enterpriseshave openedup"(227).Thoughhe acknowl-edgesthat no one theoreticalapproach an provideall the answers,4 e isskepticalof recent"narrativesf the after-theoryind" 227),arguing hat itis "moreproductive, ndaccurate, o think of the current ituationas com-ingnot aftertheorybut aftertheory'successfulbidforhegemony"215).In-stead of "a nostalgic spirit of dismayabout a revolutionbetrayed",headvocates"anassessment f what waslostamidthepolemics, ororagainsttheory,and an investigationof variousroadsnot taken, or only half ex-plored,during he hastyonwardmovementof thestruggle"216).The emerging enterpriseof TextualCulture is well placed to explorethese "various oadsnot taken,oronlyhalf explored".n the finalessayinthe issue,"TextualCulturein the Historyof the Real",CliffordSiskin issimilarly esistant o "after heory"narratives, rguingnstead that "in thehumanities,we're after mpact"'.LikeMcDonald,Siskin believesthat the"theorywars"of the pastfew decadeshave cleared he spacefornew, pro-ductivemodes of inquiry,one of which is TextualCulture.In his expansivepiece he offers a historyof how this projectmightlook from a futureper-spective,andwhyit mightbe thought ohaveemerged t thisparticular is-toricalmoment.Inparticular, e discusseshowanemphasis n "thephysicalnatureof the text"will "look to the future".Havingtraced the historyof"thephysical",ocusingon the momentatthe end of the eighteenthcenturywhen, partlyas a result of the spreadof writingand "printculture","thephysical ame alive- it becamenescapablyeal", iskindrawsacomparisonwith the currentproliferation f technologiesof "virtual eality".These, heclaims,areputtingsimilarpressure n thenotion of"reality",ndraising hepossibilityof a futurein which "thephysical" no ongerdoes the workofthe real".TextualCulture's mphasison materiality,hen, is potentialevi-dence that "in moments of change the olderformof realitybecomes thecontent f the newone",andsymptomaticf a wider ultural mpulse o turn"physicalitynto content".ForSiskin,the "changingabricof reality" equiresa re-assessmentf analytic ools,including"ideology",hich he claims is "ascomplicitwith the physical s it is with the subject".He believesthat "tomakeroomfor the virtualentailsmakingroomfornewly appropriateormsof analysis",nd proposes hat "pattern ecognition",n the form of pairedalgorithmssuch as scalabilityand emergence,and dedifferentiationandeversion,offersa potentiallyproductivewayforward. iskin's ssay magines

4. McDonald suggests n this essaythat PierreBourdieu's oncept of the "lit-eraryfield"offers "the most effective link betweenbook historyand theo-retical reflectionson literature" 225).


9/9

8 I JoeBrayandRuthEvansa future for Textual Culture that paradoxically cannot yet be envisaged, onethat is excitingly independent of the traditional tools of either literarycriti-cism or "the history of the book". UniversityfSheffieldUniversityfStirling

Works CitedBENSON,LarryD. gen. ed. 1987.The Riverside haucer, d ed. Boston:Houghton

Mifflin.DECERTEAU,ichel.1984.ThePracticefEveryday ife, ranslated yStevenF.REN-DELL.Berkeley, A:University fCaliforniaPress.

HARAWAY,Donna. 1985] 991. AManifestoorCyborgs:cience,Technology,ndSo-cialistFeminismn the 1980s".nSimians,CyborgsndWomen:TheReinventionfNature,149-81.NewYork;Routledge.KUSKIN,illiam.2006."Introduction:ollowingCaxton'sTrace". n Caxton'sTrace:Studiesn theHistory f English rinting,ditedby WilliamKUSKIN,-31.NotreDame:Universityf NotreDamePress.LERER,Seth and LeahPRICE,eds. 2006."SpecialTopic:The History f the Bookandthe Ideaof Literature".MLA121: -34.McDONALD,eter. 006."Ideas f the BookandHistories fLiterature: fterTheory?".In"SpecialTopic:TheHistory fthe BookandtheIdeaofLiterature",o-ordinatedbySethLERER ndLeah RICE. MLA 21: 14-28.McKENZIE,[onald] [rancis].002.MakingMeaning: Printersf theMind" ndOtherEssays, ditedbyPeterD. MCDONALDnd MichaelF.SUAREZ.mherst& Boston:University fMassachusettsress.McKERRow,onaldB. 1927.An IntroductionoBibliographyorLiterarytudents.Ox-

ford:Clarendon ress.MORAN,Joe.2005.ReadingheEveryday.ondonandNew York:Routledge.. 2007QueuingorBeginners:heStoryof DailyLife romBreakfasto Bedtime.London:Profile.PRICE,Leah.2002."TheTangiblePage". ondonReview fBooks,24:21(31 October):36-39.

. 2006."Introduction:eadingMatter",n "SpecialTopic:The Historyof theBook and the Idea of Literature",o-ordinated y Seth LERERnd Leah PRICE.PMLA121: -16.

What is Textual Culture?

Documents

Transcript of What is Textual Culture?