New Historicism & Cultural Poetics
Greenblatt's revolution in literary studies — reading texts as embedded in history, and history as a text. Self-fashioning, thick description, social energy, and the power/subversion/containment triad.
What is New Historicism? (Read this first)
Imagine you are reading a letter written by a soldier in the First World War. You might assume the letter simply tells you what the soldier experienced. But the military censor read every letter before it left the camp. The soldier knew this. He shaped what he wrote around what he was allowed to say. He was also shaped by the cultural codes available to him — honour, duty, sacrifice. He could not easily say he was terrified, because the language for that did not yet exist in polite discourse. The letter is not a transparent window onto his experience. It is already a product of power — the power of the censor, the power of cultural expectation, the power of the available language. Now apply this to every text ever written. That is the starting point of New Historicism.
New Historicism was founded by Stephen Greenblatt in the early 1980s. It is an approach to literary studies. Its central claim is that no literary text exists outside of history. Every text is shaped by the ideological, cultural, and political conditions of the moment it was produced.
It differs from Old Historicism. Old Historicism used history as neutral background. It treated historical facts as stable and objective. It used those facts to explain literary texts. New Historicism rejects this. It argues that history is not neutral. History is itself a text — a set of narratives constructed by people with interests and perspectives.
It also differs from New Criticism. New Criticism treated the literary text as a self-contained autonomous object. It bracketed history, biography, and context entirely. New Historicism rejects this too. No text can be read in isolation from the power structures that produced it.
Greenblatt also called his approach Cultural Poetics. This name emphasises that New Historicism reads culture — not just literary texts — as a system of symbolic exchanges. Culture can be interpreted like a poem. Every cultural practice carries meaning that can be read.
Its British counterpart is Cultural Materialism. It was founded by Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield. It shares New Historicism's historical approach. But it is more explicitly left-wing in its politics. And it insists, against Greenblatt, that literature can be a genuine site of resistance to power — not just a site where power is ultimately reinforced.
Timeline
The Interpretation of Cultures — Clifford Geertz coins 'thick description'; culture as a text to be read. New Historicists borrow this method directly.
Foucault's Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality — power as diffuse, productive, not merely repressive; discourse shapes reality. Foundational influence on New Historicism.
Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare — the founding text of New Historicism; identity as a cultural construct shaped by power structures in the Renaissance.
Greenblatt coins 'New Historicism' in the preface to The Power of Forms in the English Renaissance — the movement now has a name.
Representations journal founded — the primary venue for New Historicist criticism; connects literature, history, anthropology, and art history.
Political Shakespeare (eds. Dollimore & Sinfield) — launches Cultural Materialism as the British counterpart to New Historicism.
'Of Cannibals and Close Reading' / 'Renaissance Literary Studies and the Subject of History' (Louis Montrose) — formulates 'historicity of texts, textuality of history'.
Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England — 'social energy' concept; literature as a site of cultural negotiation.
The New Historicism (ed. H. Aram Veeser) — first comprehensive anthology defining the field; includes Greenblatt's famous manifesto-like 'Resonance and Wonder'.
Marvelous Possessions — New Historicism applied to colonial encounter; wonder and the representation of the New World.
Practicing New Historicism (Gallagher & Greenblatt) — retrospective account of the movement's methods, especially the anecdote.
Key Thinkers
Renaissance Self-Fashioning (1980); Shakespearean Negotiations (1988)
Founder of New Historicism; coined the term (1982); 'self-fashioning', 'social energy', 'thick description' applied to Renaissance literature
The Interpretation of Cultures (1973)
Coined 'thick description' — the interpretation of meaning-laden cultural practices; culture as a text; New Historicists borrowed his method wholesale
Discipline and Punish (1975); The History of Sexuality (1976)
Power/knowledge; discourse; the episteme; power as productive and diffuse — the key theoretical underpinning for New Historicism's analysis of ideology
'The Purpose of Playing' (1980); 'Professing the Renaissance' (1989)
Formulated the chiasmus: 'the historicity of texts and the textuality of history' — the defining methodological slogan of New Historicism
The Industrial Reformation of English Fiction (1985); Practicing New Historicism (2000)
Applied New Historicist methods to Victorian literature; helped define the movement's use of the literary anecdote
Radical Tragedy (1984); Political Shakespeare (1985, co-ed.)
Co-founder of Cultural Materialism (British New Historicism); materialist analysis of Renaissance drama; power and subversion
Faultlines (1992); Political Shakespeare (1985, co-ed.)
Cultural Materialism; 'faultlines' — cracks in ideological structures where subversion can occur; Shakespeare as a site of ideological struggle
The New Historicism (1989, ed.)
Edited the foundational anthology; articulated New Historicism's five shared assumptions (the key principles of the movement)
Key Concepts — Deep Explanations
Thick Description
Clifford Geertz → adopted by New Historicism
Analogy — start here
Imagine you are watching a stranger across the street. His eyelid flickers. You write in your notebook: 'eyelid flickered.' That is a thin description. Now imagine you know the context. You know he is winking at a friend. You know the wink is part of a shared private joke. You know the friend understands it as a signal of conspiracy. You write all of this down. That is thick description. The physical action is identical in both cases. The cultural meaning is completely different. Thin description records the action. Thick description records the meaning.
Definition (exam-ready)
Thick description is a method of cultural interpretation. It does not stop at recording what happened. It records the web of meaning, context, and intention that makes an action significant within its culture.
Full Explanation
The term was coined by the anthropologist Clifford Geertz. He introduced it in The Interpretation of Cultures (1973). Geertz took the term from the philosopher Gilbert Ryle. New Historicists adopted thick description as their central method of reading culture. They do not simply describe what a text says on the surface. They reconstruct the full network of meaning — the court records, the religious pamphlets, the colonial documents — that gave the text its cultural significance. Greenblatt begins many of his essays with a striking anecdote from a non-literary source. He traces its cultural significance layer by layer. He then connects it to a canonical literary text. This movement — from unexpected archive to canonical literature — is thick description applied to literary history.
Literary Examples
Shakespearean Negotiations (Greenblatt, 1988) does not open with a discussion of Shakespeare. It opens with an anecdote drawn from a historical archive about exorcism. Greenblatt reconstructs its cultural meaning in full. He then shows how that meaning circulates into Shakespeare's King Lear. The play does not exist in isolation. It exists inside a network of cultural practices. Thick description maps that network.
Historicity of Texts / Textuality of History
Louis Montrose
Analogy — start here
Think of a photograph taken at a political rally. You might assume the photograph shows you exactly what happened. But the photographer chose the angle. The photo editor chose which image to print. The newspaper chose the caption. The photograph is not a window onto reality. It is already a construction — shaped by choices, interests, and perspectives. Now apply the same logic to history. A historical document is not a transparent record of the past. It is also a construction. It was made by someone, from a particular position, with particular interests.
Definition (exam-ready)
'The historicity of texts' means that every literary text is embedded in its historical moment. It cannot escape the ideologies and power structures of the time when it was written. 'The textuality of history' means that history itself is not a neutral record of what happened. History is a text. It is a narrative constructed by historians who had their own perspectives, interests, and blind spots.
Full Explanation
Louis Montrose combined these two ideas into a chiasmus: 'the historicity of texts and the textuality of history.' A chiasmus is a rhetorical figure in which the second half reverses the terms of the first. This became the defining methodological slogan of New Historicism. Old Historicism treated history as stable background. It used history to explain a literary text. It treated the historical document as a factual window onto the past. New Historicism reverses this. It treats both the literary text and the historical document as equally constructed. Neither is simply background. Each illuminates the other. Neither gives us unmediated access to the past.
Literary Examples
When New Historicists read The Tempest, they do not treat 'Renaissance colonialism' as a factual backdrop. They treat colonial travel narratives as texts in their own right. Montaigne's 'Of Cannibals' and Strachey's account of the Bermuda shipwreck are not background facts. They are constructions shaped by the same cultural forces as Shakespeare's play. The play and the travel narrative illuminate each other. Neither explains the other. Both are part of the same cultural network.
Self-Fashioning
Stephen Greenblatt (Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 1980)
Analogy — start here
Think of a job interview. You choose your clothes carefully. You adjust how you speak. You suppress some aspects of your personality. You emphasise others to match what the interviewer expects. You are not lying. But you are constructing a version of yourself for a specific audience. You are responding to specific social expectations. Now extend this to an entire culture. In the Renaissance, Greenblatt argues, every person — writer, nobleman, king — was doing this constantly. The self was not a natural, fixed thing. It was made.
Definition (exam-ready)
Self-fashioning refers to the process by which individuals in the Renaissance constructed their public identities through social performance. The self was not a natural or pre-existing entity. It was shaped — 'fashioned' — by external authorities: the monarch, the church, the literary tradition, and the social Other.
Full Explanation
Greenblatt introduced the concept in Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (1980). He studied six Renaissance figures: Thomas More, William Tyndale, Thomas Wyatt, Edmund Spenser, Christopher Marlowe, and William Shakespeare. He argued that their identities were not expressions of a 'true self.' They were constructions produced through engagement with power. Self-fashioning always requires an Other. The self defines itself against something it identifies as threatening or alien. That Other might be a heretic, a pagan, a colonial subject, or a monster. The Other is not simply an enemy to be defeated. The Other is necessary — without it, the self cannot define its own boundaries. Self-fashioning also always involves submission to an authority. The authority might be religious, political, or literary. The self is never fully free. It is always shaped by — and negotiated against — structures of power.
Literary Examples
Prospero in The Tempest fashions himself as a civilising master against the Other of Caliban. Marlowe's Faustus fashions a transgressive self that desires and defies divine authority at the same time. Spenser's Redcrosse Knight in The Faerie Queene fashions an English Protestant identity through encounters with Catholic and pagan enemies. In each case, the self is not given before the encounter. The encounter produces the self.
Social Energy / Circulation
Stephen Greenblatt (Shakespearean Negotiations, 1988)
Analogy — start here
Think of a protest song. It begins at a demonstration — charged with anger, solidarity, and urgency. Then it is used in a film about the same event. The emotional charge is still there, but it has been transformed. It is now also nostalgia. Then a corporation uses it in an advertisement. The charge is still recognisable — but it has been drained of its original political meaning. The song's emotional force has circulated from one social context to another. It has been transformed at each point. But something travels across all three contexts. That travelling force is what Greenblatt calls social energy.
Definition (exam-ready)
Social energy is Greenblatt's term for the aesthetic, emotional, and representational force that circulates between different social institutions, practices, rituals, and literary texts within a culture.
Full Explanation
Social energy does not originate with the individual author. It is not Shakespeare's private genius that makes his plays powerful. The energy was already circulating in the culture. It was present in religious rituals, legal proceedings, royal spectacles, and theatrical performances. Shakespeare's plays negotiate this energy. They borrow it from one social domain. They release it in another. They transform it in the process. Greenblatt opens Shakespearean Negotiations (1988) with the sentence: 'I began with the desire to speak with the dead.' He wants to recover the living social context in which Shakespeare's plays participated. He does this by tracing the movement of social energy from unexpected non-literary sources into the plays.
Literary Examples
In King Lear, Edgar performs as 'Poor Tom' — a man supposedly possessed by demons. Greenblatt traces this performance to a specific historical source. Samuel Harsnett published A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures in 1603. It attacked Catholic exorcism practices. Greenblatt argues Shakespeare read this pamphlet. The social energy of the exorcism controversy passes from Harsnett's pamphlet into Shakespeare's play. It is transformed in the transfer. But its origin is not Shakespeare's imagination alone. Its origin is a specific historical controversy about religious power.
Power / Subversion / Containment
Greenblatt; countered by Dollimore & Sinfield (Cultural Materialism)
Analogy — start here
Think of a government that allows a comedy show to mock the Prime Minister. On the surface, this looks like free speech — even like subversion of power. But the government permits it. It might even be broadcast on a government-funded channel. Why? Because allowing controlled mockery demonstrates that the government is confident and tolerant. It shows power is strong enough to absorb criticism without being threatened. The mockery is real. But it ultimately reinforces the authority it appears to challenge. That is containment. The subversion is licensed. The subversion is managed. The subversion ends up serving the very power it seemed to defy.
Definition (exam-ready)
The power/subversion/containment model describes how dominant power structures — the state, the church, the monarch — allow apparent subversion to occur. They allow it because controlling and displaying subversion actually reinforces their authority.
Full Explanation
Power does not simply repress. Power also produces. It produces the very representations of transgression that seem to threaten it. A carnival, a mock king, a theatrical villain — these appear to challenge the existing order. But they are licensed by power. They are displayed in controlled settings. They ultimately demonstrate that the existing order is inevitable and legitimate. Greenblatt reads Prince Hal's time in the Eastcheap taverns as containment in action. Hal appears to be abandoning his royal identity. He drinks with commoners. He jokes with thieves. This looks like subversion. But Greenblatt argues it actually equips Hal to exercise royal power more effectively. Learning how ordinary people think and feel makes him a more persuasive, more adaptable king. The apparent subversion serves power. Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield dispute this model. They argue that power cannot always contain subversion. Alan Sinfield calls the evidence of failure 'faultlines.' Faultlines are contradictions within dominant ideology. They are cracks through which resistant meanings escape. Cultural Materialism insists that genuine resistance is possible — not every act of subversion is ultimately absorbed.
Literary Examples
Greenblatt reads the deposition scene in Richard II as licensed subversion. The play imagines removing a king. But it does so in order to explore and ultimately reaffirm the divine right of kingship. The theatre itself required royal patronage. It was always already in negotiation with power. The subversion of depicting a king's removal is managed by the very institution — the monarchy — whose authority it seems to question.
Cultural Materialism vs New Historicism
Dollimore & Sinfield (British) vs Greenblatt (American)
Analogy — start here
Two doctors examine the same patient. Both agree the illness is caused by the patient's environment — not by nature or fate. But the first doctor says: 'The body's immune system will cope. The condition is self-limiting.' The second doctor says: 'No — without intervention, it will get worse. We must act.' Both share the same diagnosis. But they disagree completely on whether the body can heal itself. New Historicism and Cultural Materialism share the same diagnosis of literature: power shapes it. But they disagree fundamentally on whether resistance is possible.
Definition (exam-ready)
Cultural Materialism is the British counterpart of New Historicism. It was founded by Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield. Its name comes from Raymond Williams's concept of cultural materialism — the analysis of culture as a productive force in society. Both New Historicism and Cultural Materialism study the relationship between literature, history, and power. The key difference is political.
Full Explanation
New Historicism tends to see power as successfully containing subversion. This is the 'containment' model. Cultural Materialism is explicitly left-wing. It rejects the containment model. It insists that genuine resistance is possible. It argues that ideology is never total. Ideology always has internal contradictions. Alan Sinfield introduced the concept of 'faultlines' in Faultlines (1992). Faultlines are the contradictions and inconsistencies within dominant ideological structures. They are not gaps that power creates deliberately. They are cracks that power cannot avoid. Through faultlines, subversive meaning can escape containment. A New Historicist reads Hal's tavern scenes as apparent subversion successfully contained by royal power. A Cultural Materialist reads the same scenes as genuinely unstable. The ideological contradictions cannot be fully resolved. A resistant reader can activate those contradictions. For Cultural Materialism, the reader's political position matters.
Literary Examples
Dollimore's Radical Tragedy (1984) reads Renaissance drama as genuinely subversive of divine-right monarchy. This is the opposite of Greenblatt's containment model. Sinfield's Faultlines (1992) reads Shakespeare's histories as sites of ideological contradiction that can be activated by a resistant reader. Where Greenblatt sees Hal's kingship as the successful outcome of containment, a Cultural Materialist sees in the same play unresolved tensions about power, legitimacy, and class that the text cannot close off.
Quick Comparison — New Historicism vs Cultural Materialism
| Feature | New Historicism (American) | Cultural Materialism (British) |
|---|---|---|
| Key figures | Greenblatt, Gallagher, Montrose | Dollimore, Sinfield, Raymond Williams |
| Founded | 1980 (Renaissance Self-Fashioning) | 1985 (Political Shakespeare) |
| Political stance | Liberal / relatively apolitical | Explicitly left-wing / Marxist |
| View of power | Power contains subversion (containment) | Genuine resistance possible (faultlines) |
| View of Shakespeare | Site of cultural negotiation | Site of ideological struggle — can be made radical |
| Key term | Self-fashioning / Social energy | Faultlines / Cultural materialism |
| Theoretical influence | Foucault, Geertz | Raymond Williams, Gramsci, Foucault |
🎯 25 Practice MCQs — UGC NET Pattern
Direct questions, Statement I & II, and Match the Following — the three formats used in UGC NET English for literary theory.
New Historicism — UGC NET MCQs
Direct MCQThe term 'New Historicism' was coined by Stephen Greenblatt in the preface to which work?
Related Theory Pages
Postcolonialism
Said, Spivak, Bhabha — the theory New Historicism most closely intersects with.
Study →Marxist Criticism
The materialist tradition underpinning Cultural Materialism.
Study →Cultural Studies
Stuart Hall, Raymond Williams — the Birmingham School adjacent to Cultural Materialism.
Study →Poststructuralism
Foucault's discourse theory is the primary theoretical input to New Historicism.
Study →Literary Theory Hub
All 20 theories for UGC NET Units VIII & IX — with MCQs.
Study →Match the Following MCQs
50 questions — match theorists to works, concepts to critics.
Study →