Review

Author(s): Carl Rubino

Review by: Carl Rubino
Source: MLN, Vol. 97, No. 5, Comparative Literature (Dec., 1982), pp. 1213-1217
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2905986
Accessed: 14-01-2016 02:18 UTC

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 support@jstor.org.

Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MLN.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 02:18:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 M L N 1213

Josue V. Harari, ed., TextualStrategies: in Post-Structuralist

Perspectives Crit-
icism
Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1979. 475 pages

theText:A Post-Structuralist
Robert Young, ed., Untying Reader
Boston, London, and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. x +
326 pages

hisego nec metasrerumnec temporapono:

imperium sinefinededi.
Vergil,Aeneid1.278-279.
Since the appearance in 1966 of Yale French Studies 36-37, entitled
"Structuralism,"' the progress of contemporary French thought in
America and Britainhas been marked to a great extentnot by monumen-
tal books fromthe hands of single authorsbut by collectionsof the sortwe
have here. Among those numerous anthologiesone thinksin particularof
two associated withJohns Hopkins, The Structuralist Controversy:The Lan-
guagesof Criticismand theSciencesofMan, edited by Richard Macksey and
Eugenio Donato,2 and Velocities of Change:CriticalEssaysfromMLN, edited
by Richard Macksey.3That two of the three collectionsI have mentioned
are associatedwithjournals should come as no surprise,since the historyof
Frenchinfluenceon contemporaryAnglo-Americancriticismis largelythe
historyofjournals such as MLN, Diacritics, New Literary History,Sub-Stance,
Semiotexte,Glyph,Yale FrenchStudies,and the like.
This is fitting,because journals and anthologies necessarilyinvolve at
least a modicum of interpretivepluralism,and pluralismis what contem-
poraryFrench thoughtprofessesto be about. Accordingto accepted con-
ventions,books by single authors presentindividual,not plural, readings
and interpretations.We are taught to look for "unity" in such "works."
Reviewers like to write and authors yearn to read that such works are
"definitive,"thattheyhave exhausted the subjectmatter,and thingsof that
kind.4The desire to exhaust the fieldand thejudgement thatsuch a desire
has reached fulfillmentin the production of a definitivework reveal an-
other desire, the desire to limitmeaning, to "close the question." Indeed,
thatis preciselywhat is meant by the Latin verbdefinio:to set bounds to, to
limit,to terminate,to finish. Recall also the full meaning of the word
monumenta: the primarymeaning of monumentum is sepulchral monument,
tomb. In thissense, therefore,monumentalworksimplythe death of their
subjects.Yet structuralistand post-structuralistthoughtstand opposed to
the definitiveand monumental; theylabor to give words and theirmean-
ings what Jupiterpromised to the Romans in the Aeneid: power without
limit,no boundaries in space or time. The desire for the definitiveis the
desire of Western metaphysics;contemporaryFrench though offersnot
definitionbut difference,not works but texts.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 02:18:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1214 REVIEWS

TextualStrategies, as its titlesuggests,is true to its subject matterin not

being definitive.Rather than exhaustingthe field,thisexcellentcollection
opens it to legions.5 Its inhabitorsare, in order of appearance, Roland
Barthes,Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, Edward Said,
Rene Girard,Eugenio Donato, Louis Marin,Michel Serres,Gilles Deleuze,
Neil Hertz,Joseph Riddel, Gerard Genette,Eugene Vance, and Michael
Riffaterre,a distinguishedgroup indeed.6 Besides providingan extensive
bibliographicalguide to post-structuralism,7 the editor,in a detailed essay
entitled "Critical Fractions/Critical Fictions,"has attempted to draw his
contributionstogetherand locate them on the "structuralisttree."8
Readers and publishershave come to expect such introductoryessaysto
demonstratethe "unity"of collectionslike these. Thus editorsare asked to
do the work of theirreaders: to discover,or invent,connectionsbetween
the various essays,then to exploit such connectionsand produce a certain
singlemeaning,a sensunique,ifyou will.In thissense, editorsare supposed
to performthe functionthat some assign to the chorus in Greek tragedy:
theyare the initialinterpretersof what the wider audience receives,pre-
sentingthataudience withan author's or editor's personal and privileged
conception of his work. In the case of collectionslike the two under con-
siderationhere, such introductionswould be both improper and impossi-
ble. Improper because the notion of the ready-made interpretationand
the authoritativereading runs against the grain of structuralistthought,
which exalts the notion of pluralityand the functionalequivalence of
reader and writer,debunking the authorityof the author.9Impossible for
a more obvious and at the same time more interestingreason: such collec-
tions are not the product of one author but of many; thus theycannot by
their very nature possess the sort of unitythat is being demanded. As
Foucault demonstrates,the "author" is more a categoryof interpretation, a
mode of restrictingmeaning,than a "real person." The common demand
for "unifying"introductionsmay thus be understood as a desire for the
presence of an author who will bestow meaning on a collection'svarious
voices: the editor'somniscientintroduction,his "overview,"is asked to take
the place of the absent author and make readers "feel at home."
It is much to Harari's credit that he has explicitlyand methodically
refused us such an introduction,preferinginstead to leave his essays "in
theiruniqueness," withno attempt"to erase theirborders and the differ-
ences betweenthem" (p. 12). At the end of his introduction,Harari again
takes care to remind us of his claims for it.
It claimsneithera privileged
vantagepointnordefinitiveconclusions.It does not
attempt to avoidcontradictions
in orderto homogenize thecriticaloverview. At
timesit does notevenattemptto establishwhatwouldnormally be considered
validlinksamongcritics.At othertimesit attemptsto bringtogetherwhatI
considerto be thefundamental pointsof a giventheory.But it representsonly
one pointof view,and one among manyothers.Readersmayobjectto my
selectionprocess, and there is no reason whytheyshould not: in more than one
way,itis theirobjectionsthatwillmake the contentsof thisvolume valuable. (p. 71)

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 02:18:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 M L N 1215

Thus he claims for his introductionno more and no less than what he
would grantto any of the essays in his volume or, for that matter,to any
attemptat criticism:it is a strategy.
Although Harari puts a good deal of stresson an "obsolete" meaning of
the word strategy (i.e., the use of a stratagem,defined as "a violent and
bloody act"), much of his introductoryessay plays on a more conventional
sense of the word, a sense exalted by structuralistand post-structuralist
alike. A strategyis an approach thatis onlyone among many,an approach
thatwillbe judged bythe resultsitachieves,a "pragmatic"approach, ifyou
will(p. 25). A textualstrategyis itselfa text,but a textthatattacksanother
text. This is an importantpoint, for where much recent criticismhas in-
dulged in a sort of Kantian obsession with its own a prioriassumptions,
Harari wishes to awaken criticalthought fromthis solipsistictrance and
restore to it an object other than itself.Though theoryfor its own sake
remainsa valid and endlesslyfascinatingpursuit,it would be a noteworthy
and extremelyhealthy move were criticismto turn once again to the
analysisof literarytexts.
Young's collectionseems part of such a move, for he tellsus thathe has
"concentratedon specifictextual analyses,withthe idea thatif the reader
at least knows the text that is being analysed, it will be much easier to
recognize the extraordinaryeffectsof this sort of work and its success in
opening up literaturein a new and compellingway" (p. vii). Such an intent
is clearlyadmirable,but to claim thata volume containingthe complexities
and prolixitiesof some of Young's noted contributorscould make any-
thing "much easier" seems only to invite scornful disbelief.10Although
Young is perceptiveenough to become quicklyuneasy withthatclaim, he
attemptsto exorcize his discomfortwitha bit of"theoretical"incantation.
"Reading,"Barthesremarksin S/Z,"is a formof work." AlthoughI havemade
everyattempt tomakethismaterialmoreaccessible, thisdoesnotmeanthatithas
become easy. It is readingitselfwhichis difficult, not theory.There is no
of a "non-theoretical"
possibility criticism.
(p. viii)
Whether Young's collection makes the material "much easier" or merely
"more accessible" may be debated, but it seems safe to say that it will
persuade few who are not already in the post-structuralist camp or quite
to
eager join.
Young's introduction,like Harari's, is quite ambitious,promisingmore
than the conventionalintroductionto collectionsof disparate essays writ-
ten at differenttimesby differenthands. In it he attemptsto do what the
essays he has selected do not, "to indicate some of the main areas of the
more specificallytheoreticalworkin whichpost-structuralism is engaged,"
withan "emphasis on the workof Derrida, Foucault,and Lacan" (p. viii).If
thisintroductioncan be faulted,it is forthree reasons. First,in contrastto
the depth and originalityof Harari, Young offersus too littleof his own:
there is entirelytoo much paraphrase and even lengthydirect quotation
from the writershe discusses. Second, although Young cites Derrida,

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 02:18:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1216 REVIEWS

Foucault,and Lacan as those he intendsto stress,he places equal emphasis

on Pierre Macherey's 1965 critique of structuralism.1l I would argue that
such an emphasis is misplaced. Young himselfadmitsthatMachereyhas a
Marxistax to grindwhen he statesthatMacherey"attacksstructuralismfor
its ahistoricism"(p. 4). It is a rather dull ax at that, far less post- than
anti-structuralist. Since attacksof this kind have been dealt withby Levi-
Strauss himself,12 theyhardly seem good places to look for the genesis of
post-structuralism. Indeed, what is perhaps the first clearly post-
structuralistessay is inscribed in one of our firststructuralistcollections,
whichitselfcelebratesthe firstfull-dressarrivalof structuralismupon the
American scene: the essay is Derrida's "Structure,Sign, and Play in the
Discourse of the Human Sciences," found in Macksey and Donato, The
StructuralistControversy.13It was thatessay and otherslike it,not predictable
Marxistcritiques,that urged us into a post-structuralist era.
The thirdfaultis more serious,damaging not onlyYoung's introductory
essay but his entirecollectionas well. That is the complete omissionof such
thinkersas Rene Girard and Michel Serres, both of whom are prominent
in Harari's collection.Not onlycan both of thembe described as "textbook
examples" of the post-structuralist thinker,but both are extremelyimpor-
tant as well: theirwork,in particularthe work of Girard, is discussed not
only in academic circlesbut in public debate as well. That such writersare
totallyabsent from Young's collection serves to support Girard's tren-
chantlyargued contentionthat much of post-structuralism has degener-
ated into a "textualism"that is solipsisticallyconcerned only with itself.
Moreover, Girard is one of the most accessible of contemporaryFrench
thinkers;thus it is especially disconcertingto find him omitted from a
collectionthan makes claims to accessibility.
The great danger confrontingpost-structuralism, particularlyin Britain
and North America, is one that has been presentsince structuralismfirst
took root in Anglophone countries: it is the tendency,growingever more
pronounced, to restrictitself,to take fartoo narrowa focus.Thinkers like
Serres and Girard open it to a wider range of language and thought,
beckoningit beyond an often painfullyconvoluted concern witha limited
number of carefullyselected congenial textsinto the broader world of the
naturaland human sciences.AlthoughUntying theTextis an importantand
rewarding collection of post-structuralist writing,it cannot escape the
charge of narrownessboth in scope and in choice of contributors.This is
whereTextualStrategies scores some of itsstrongestpoints:though Harari's
titleexalts the text,his book does not do so in a narrowand precious way,
and he has drawn on a wide and diverse range of contributors.Textual
Strategiesis an importantbook forverymanyreasons,not the least of them
being that its editor has well understood a crucial implicationof Paul de
Man's statementthattextsdo not alwayscome to us as texts,thattheyoften
"masquerade in the guise of wars and revolutions."'4And, one mightadd,
in many other guises as well.

of Texas,Austin
University CARL RUBINO

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 02:18:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 M L N 1217

NOTES

1 This collectioncan now be found in book formas Jacques Ehrmann ed., Struc-
turalism(Garden City,N.Y., 1970).
2 Baltimoreand London, 1970.
3 Baltimoreand London, 1974.
4 I am influencedhere by Foucault's essay, "What is an Author?,"found on pp.
141-160 of TextualStrategies.
5 See Mark 5.9, a verse that is cited by Barthes in "From Work to Text," Textual
Strategies, p. 77.
6 The great majorityof these textsare eitheroriginalwiththisvolume or appear
for the firsttime in English translation.
7 Harari's effortsas a bibliographerare well-known:witnessthe immenselyhelp-
ful Structuralists and Structuralisms:A SelectedBibliographyof Contemporary French
Thought(1960-1970) (Ithaca, N.Y., 1971).
8 Harari's expression on p. 27, where he cites Raymond Boudon, A Quoi sertla
notionde "structure" (Paris, 1968), pp. 227-228.
9 See again Foucault, "What is an Author?" (above, note 4).
10 Young's contributorsare, in order of appearance, Roland Barthes (two essays),
Michel Foucault, Etienne Balibar and Pierre Macherey,Michael Riffaterre,Bar-
bara Johnson (two essays),JeffreyMehlman, Maud Ellman, Ann Wordsworth,
J. Hillis Miller, Paul de Man, and Richard A. Rand. The great majorityof the
essays are not original withYoung's collection.
11 Macherey'sarticle,"L'Analyse litteraire,tombeau des structures,"was published
in Les Tempsmodernes 246 (1966) and reprintedin Pour une Theoriede la production
litteraire(Paris, 1966), translatedby GeoffreyWall as A TheoryofLiterary Produc-
tion(London, Henley, and Boston, 1978).
12 See, for example, the last chapter of La Penseesauvage (Paris, 1962).
13 The Structuralist Controversy (above, note 2) constitues the proceedings of an
internationalsymposium held at Johns Hopkins in October 1966. Derrida's
paper, along with the discussion followingit, appears on pp. 247-272 of the
volume; a Frenchversionof the paper appears in L'Ecriture et la differance
(Paris,
1967), translatedby Alan Bass as Writingand Difference (Chicago, 1978).
14 Paul de Man, Blindnessand Insight:Essaysin theRhetoricof Contemporary Criticism
(New York, 1971), p. 165.

Michael Ryan, Marxismand Deconstruction:

A CriticalArticulation
Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1982.
xvii + 232 pages
The recent appearance of Michael Ryan's Marxismand Deconstruction is
especiallywelcome at a momentwhen advocates of each of theserespective
modes increasinglytend to define themselvesin rigid opposition to one
another. If most discussions of the relationshipbetween these discourses
ultimately succumb to partisan polemics-Hillis Miller, for example,
"views as naive the millennialor revolutionaryhopes stillpresent in one
way or another even in sophisticated Marxism,"' while Terry Eagleton
claims that"many of the vauntedlynovel themesof deconstructionismdo
little more than reproduce some of the most commonplace topics of
bourgeois liberalism"2-it is Ryan's originalityto circumventthis atmo-

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 02:18:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions