One of the largest distinctions between new historicists and cultural materialists is their view on the makers of history. The cultural materialists focus on the “interventions whereby” people make history, whereas the new historicists look at the “less than ideal circumstances in which they do so.”
What I take from this is that the materialists see historical figures as fortunate people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. As if anyone in their place would have been an adequate substitute. For certain historical events, I can see the merit in this. The discovery of penicillin, for example, by Alexander Fleming, was a fairly serendipitous event. Alexander Graham Bell was originally trying to make a hearing aid and ended up with the telephone. Even Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA was kind of a fluke. Rosalind Franklin was right behind them, and some people even debate that they took credit for her work. So in these situations, I can agree that it seems fate or nature or both intervened on the behalf of the historical figure.
However, in most circumstances I would be more likely to side with the historicists. Their outlook seems to be more positive, and suggests that historical findings and inventions have a base in merit, determination, and lots of hard work. Without their hardships, certain historical figures would have been mediocre, average people. Examples include Anne Frank, Harriet Tubman, and Edward Jenner, the inventor of the vaccine. To test the vaccine, Jenner was forced to inoculate an 8 year old with cowpox, then smallpox. I like to believe that without such hardships, we can find no great success.
Page 178, Beginning Theory.
Hi Mary Alice, Thanks for your good posts on historicism and Marxism. Bot were interesting and well argued. The main difference between new historicists and material culturalists is that the latter tend to be more British and more Marxist. such people also have a more overt political agenda, while the historicists tend to stay in the past, hoping that what they say about historical power structures will reflect on the present indirectly. I also liked your discussion of Marxism. there is a certain naivete in thinking everyone can be similar in all things, but I am not sure this is exactly what Marxism promotes. Marx and Engles dreamed of a classless world, where there was no ruling class to exploit a lower class. This might be naive in itself. Good thoughts to consider. dw
ReplyDelete