FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1995220304> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1995220304 endingPage "217" @default.
• W1995220304 startingPage "185" @default.
• W1995220304 abstract "Cultures, Canons, and Cetology:Modernist Anthropology and the Form of Culture in Lewis Mumford's Herman Melville Eric Aronoff (bio) When Leslie Fiedler, in An End to Innocence, wonders whether to call Herman Melville the discovery or invention of our time, he points to what, in 1948, was then the relatively recent phenomenon of the Melville revival of the 1920s—a phenomenon that now stands as one of the most startling examples of canon reformation in American literary history.1 Beyond the remarkable reversal of literary fortune it represents, the Melville revival was situated at an unusual confluence of literary, cultural, and institutional histories. It occurred, as Paul Lauter has observed, during the ascent of the ideology we call 'modernism,' as ideas of American identity and art were intensely debated against the backdrop of conflict and change, from the rise of new technologies of communication and consumerism to unprecedented waves of new immigration, labor strikes, and racial violence.2 It was also the period in which both American literature emerged as a distinct discipline and the interdisciplinary approach that would come to be called American Studies first appeared.3 While other authors underwent reevaluation in this period, no other author's canonization has paralleled so closely the development and institutionalization of American literary studies in the academy through the twentieth century—and thus registered the complexities of the ideological debates that surround it. [End Page 185] The study of Melville studies, then, could be said to be the study of American literature as a discipline. And if, as Lionel Trilling puts it, criticism is the dark and bloody crossroads where literature and politics meet, the critical reception of Herman Melville is a major intersection where the body count is particularly high.4 Critics promoting the revival during the 1920s denounced their predecessors' Anglophilic, genteel rejection of Melville; midcentury New Critics and myth critics in turn critiqued the 1920s liberals for making his books directly relevant to their concerns and interest—namely their post-WWI critique of American materialism and conformity.5 With the rise of new historicism, poststructuralism, and cultural studies in the last three decades, New Americanists such as Lauter and William Spanos have targeted the conservative consensus politics of early Americanists, arguing that the Melville revival was part of an ideological conflict which linked advocates of modernism and of traditional high cultural values . . . against a social and cultural 'other,'. . . portrayed as feminine, genteel, exotic, dark, foreign, and numerous.6 As a bulwark against the perceived threat of women, immigrants, and a restive working class, they argue, a distinctively masculine, Anglo-Saxon image of Melville was deployed as a lone and powerful artistic beacon against the dangers presented by the masses.7 In perhaps the latest sideswipe in this intersection, Clare Spark takes to task the modernist liberals and radical New Americanists, arguing that both perpetuate a conservative Enlightenment reading of Ahab as an overreaching monomaniac who represents the forces that led to Hitler (for critics in the 1930s-60s) or U.S. imperialism and racism (for New Americanists). Spark in turn charges that these readings themselves are committed to corporatism and ethnopluralism—philosophical positions rooted in Herder and leading to . . . Hitler.8 A bloody intersection indeed. I would like to complicate these accounts of the Melville revival and, by extension, the relationship between modernism, American literary canon formation, and American Studies by positioning the revival at the intersection of yet another pair of institutional histories: the rise, on the one hand, of the anthropological version of culture as relative, whole systems [End Page 186] of meaning and, on the other, of the modernist fascination with the literary text as spatial form, which culminated in the reading practices of the New Criticism. For the Melville revival in the 1920s was also the period in which literary criticism and anthropology attained their modern disciplinary identities, and both did so by reconceptualizing their objects of analysis—or perhaps more accurately, by reconceptualizing these disciplines as centering on what could be seen as objects requiring analysis: in literary criticism, the New Critical conception of the poem; in anthropology, the idea of culture(s). These multiple disciplinary histories, moreover, were intimately related, as..." @default.
• W1995220304 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1995220304 creator A5044382656 @default.
• W1995220304 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W1995220304 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1995220304 title "Cultures, Canons, and Cetology: Modernist Anthropology and the Form of Culture in Lewis Mumford's <i>Herman Melville</i>" @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1481850309 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1489008194 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1497582447 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1515824638 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1515867222 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1534925113 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1539493583 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1541761080 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1548994650 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1583270692 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1687743765 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1859282079 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1951547502 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1969779153 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1983580675 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1995780705 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2004711443 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2014835372 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2015351182 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2025218130 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2043425409 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2053421624 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2053484822 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2054879106 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2056801758 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2058767381 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2064339676 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2065342460 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2070627018 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2071072507 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2073515779 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2076566559 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2081435777 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2087699294 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2114171971 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2137358295 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2139487185 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2140286108 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2236359155 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2252138512 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2316265949 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2321424927 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2325557991 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2330839278 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2503772014 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2580541658 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2799621804 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W2973071917 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W3016007247 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W567951187 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W592152542 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W604205145 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W640272090 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W646611041 @default.
• W1995220304 cites W1509343504 @default.
• W1995220304 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/esq.2012.0011" @default.
• W1995220304 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1995220304 type Work @default.
• W1995220304 sameAs 1995220304 @default.
• W1995220304 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1995220304 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1995220304 hasAuthorship W1995220304A5044382656 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C171533372 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C189807693 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C2776242748 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C2778355321 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C2781291010 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C50335755 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C107038049 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C111472728 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C124952713 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C138885662 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C142362112 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C144024400 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C158071213 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C171533372 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C17744445 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C189807693 @default.
• W1995220304 hasConceptScore W1995220304C19165224 @default.

• next