Understanding the process of canonization can be highlighted through a historical perspective. As a discipline social theory is an extension or outgrowth of literary criticism. Literary criticism has gone through many phases of ‘schools’ of analysis which eventually morphed into critical theory which was more movement oriented. Methods under critical theory are characterized by their more critical lens and tendency to write for a cause rather than writing “theory for theory sake.”
Social theory developed out of ‘New Criticism’ which was a movement within critical theory that emphasized close reading (of poetry) which analyzed the relation of writer to reader. A dominant realm within critical theory that complicated New Criticism was known as the Frankfurt School (i.e. Marxism). It moved beyond the principal of ‘close’ reading’ and
One can see a logical trend within Literary Criticism towards the present day perception of contextualization as essential to understanding the author, the work itself, and the intended and unintended consequences.
Now we have Feminist and Queer theories which are very much so part of critical theory but have been appropriated by Sociologists to their discipline. Feminist and Queer theories can now be seen in both English and Gender Studies departments. These theories are not only historically multidisciplinary but also inherently so in respect to their approach to content analysis.
Recognizing these theories in their context as relatively recent compared to the Marx, Weber, Durkheim triad shows why they aren’t frequently included in the canon of social theory (or critical theory). The change that Feminist and Queer theorist are proposing in their critiques will (with dramatic irony) take a while to be accepted into the knowledge pool and canonized.
Annette Kolodny is one female feminist theorist frequently cited in literary criticism anthologies (one indication of what has been canonized). She specifically explicates the process of canonization in her most well-known essay, “Dancing Through The Minefields” by employing Social Constructionism. Kolodny explains canonization by using rhetoric of the aesthetics; what is pleasing to the “interpretive community” (Stanley Fish) is included in the canon which is attributed to the recreation of that aesthetic – thus the cyclical process of canonization. In her piece, Kolodny boldly asserts that the literary canon is a social construction and that readers then engage with texts from a certain expected point-of-view. She understands readers as a social product: “readers and texts are both made.”
While Kolodny describes all these things as social constructions she does not negate the concrete impact canonization has on what we deem important, knowledge-worthy, or worthy of the aesthetic. She ultimately challenges how the aesthetic should be constructed, and subsequently the canon, and that our understanding of the aesthetic should constantly be reimagined.
Social theory is not immune to factors such as the desire to be seen as legitimate and certain analyses being seen as more academic because of their source that lead to canonization. In a certain way, the canons of social theory and other disciplines within academia reflect the social hierarchy that depends on class, race, gender, ability, etc.
I proceed recognizing that the following is from my situated knowledge from a progressive university: I have observed social theory to be inherently more progressive in comparison to the Sciences and other disciplines within the Humanities even. I initially chose to apply to UIC as a Chemistry major and since switched to studying Sociology and minoring in English and Gender and Women Studies (GWS). Among these disciplines, there seems to be a hierarchy between them in terms of how static or dynamic their canons are. Sociology and GWS have seemed to be the most progressive because of their self-critiquing nature that constantly challenges the canon.
With that said, I find constructive Sociological criticism to be ones that acknowledge this history and that all canons are rigid structures that take time to transform. To not acknowledge this history and process of canonization (how the ‘aesthetic’ functions) would be self-contradictory in that the argument would not understand its own socio-historical context.
Canons serve the function of valued and generalized knowledge and reflect the values of society. To change the canon also requires changing societal perceptions and being able to prove that these new perceptions hold merit. Which returns to the necessity of the canon – the canon as a system and process that holds merit and influences the production of knowledge. Interrupting this flow of knowledge, or adding to it rather, is a painstaking task. Which illuminates the importance of both Sociological criticism (and critical theory in general) and social activism in changing the canon and subsequently changing the knowledge pool.
Social theory developed out of ‘New Criticism’ which was a movement within critical theory that emphasized close reading (of poetry) which analyzed the relation of writer to reader. A dominant realm within critical theory that complicated New Criticism was known as the Frankfurt School (i.e. Marxism). It moved beyond the principal of ‘close’ reading’ and
One can see a logical trend within Literary Criticism towards the present day perception of contextualization as essential to understanding the author, the work itself, and the intended and unintended consequences.
Now we have Feminist and Queer theories which are very much so part of critical theory but have been appropriated by Sociologists to their discipline. Feminist and Queer theories can now be seen in both English and Gender Studies departments. These theories are not only historically multidisciplinary but also inherently so in respect to their approach to content analysis.
Recognizing these theories in their context as relatively recent compared to the Marx, Weber, Durkheim triad shows why they aren’t frequently included in the canon of social theory (or critical theory). The change that Feminist and Queer theorist are proposing in their critiques will (with dramatic irony) take a while to be accepted into the knowledge pool and canonized.
Annette Kolodny is one female feminist theorist frequently cited in literary criticism anthologies (one indication of what has been canonized). She specifically explicates the process of canonization in her most well-known essay, “Dancing Through The Minefields” by employing Social Constructionism. Kolodny explains canonization by using rhetoric of the aesthetics; what is pleasing to the “interpretive community” (Stanley Fish) is included in the canon which is attributed to the recreation of that aesthetic – thus the cyclical process of canonization. In her piece, Kolodny boldly asserts that the literary canon is a social construction and that readers then engage with texts from a certain expected point-of-view. She understands readers as a social product: “readers and texts are both made.”
While Kolodny describes all these things as social constructions she does not negate the concrete impact canonization has on what we deem important, knowledge-worthy, or worthy of the aesthetic. She ultimately challenges how the aesthetic should be constructed, and subsequently the canon, and that our understanding of the aesthetic should constantly be reimagined.
Social theory is not immune to factors such as the desire to be seen as legitimate and certain analyses being seen as more academic because of their source that lead to canonization. In a certain way, the canons of social theory and other disciplines within academia reflect the social hierarchy that depends on class, race, gender, ability, etc.
I proceed recognizing that the following is from my situated knowledge from a progressive university: I have observed social theory to be inherently more progressive in comparison to the Sciences and other disciplines within the Humanities even. I initially chose to apply to UIC as a Chemistry major and since switched to studying Sociology and minoring in English and Gender and Women Studies (GWS). Among these disciplines, there seems to be a hierarchy between them in terms of how static or dynamic their canons are. Sociology and GWS have seemed to be the most progressive because of their self-critiquing nature that constantly challenges the canon.
With that said, I find constructive Sociological criticism to be ones that acknowledge this history and that all canons are rigid structures that take time to transform. To not acknowledge this history and process of canonization (how the ‘aesthetic’ functions) would be self-contradictory in that the argument would not understand its own socio-historical context.
Canons serve the function of valued and generalized knowledge and reflect the values of society. To change the canon also requires changing societal perceptions and being able to prove that these new perceptions hold merit. Which returns to the necessity of the canon – the canon as a system and process that holds merit and influences the production of knowledge. Interrupting this flow of knowledge, or adding to it rather, is a painstaking task. Which illuminates the importance of both Sociological criticism (and critical theory in general) and social activism in changing the canon and subsequently changing the knowledge pool.