Theo Jung

Summary

Cultural criticism (Kulturkritik) is so much part of our everyday experience, that we barely even notice it anymore. In newspapers, in art, in advertising and in politics, everywhere we find its all too familiar language, which, frankly, bores us with its constant repetitions. No wonder, then, that it has often been suggested that every culture necessarily brings forth its own criticism.

In a historical perspective, however, a distinction may be drawn between premodern forms of criticism and a specifically modern form. As many studies in the history of thought and of language use have shown, the late 18^th century witnessed the dawn of a new historical consciousness, linked to a new understanding of culture. In this context, a new form of criticism emerged that has profoundly influenced Western self understanding ever since. It is cultural criticism in it’s narrower, specifically modern sense, that is: the criticism of one’s own culture as a whole, in a historical perspective. In this research project, the methods of discourse analysis are used to study the emergence and early development of this discourse between the 1750s and the 1830s.

Especially in the German context, where it is very much part of the national historical consciousness, Kulturkritik has been the subject of some research, mainly by literary historians and philosophers. I would argue, however, that a history of cultural criticism from the perspective of discourse analysis could shed new light on the subject and perhaps help solve certain problems in its current interpretation.

First, cultural criticism has often been viewed as a system of thought and traced through a series of poets and philosophers: the ‘usual suspects’ of the tradition. From the perspective of historical semantics, however, cultural criticism is understood as a discourse – that is – as a recognizable mode of language that involves certain conceptual structures, metaphors, interpretative and narrative models, style, authorial positions, etc, and that has a much wider circulation. Thus, the focus shifts from the familiar ‘family’ of critics to the family resemblances of their language. For that reason, a wide range of texts will have to be taken into account, running from the classics of the discourse to its everyday adaptation in journals of the period.

Secondly, much of the existing literature has the tendency to place cultural criticism quasi ‘outside’ the normal course of modernity. Under the heading of Counter-Enlightenment, or in terms of very strong binary oppositions between Franco-British Enlightenment and German Romanticism, cultural criticism is understood as an anomaly in the modern world. This leads to obvious anachronisms in its interpretation, be it that it is viewed as an irrational relic from premodern times or in terms of a German Sonderweg that ends in National Socialism.

Paradoxically, these interpretations unconsciously repeat the self-description that is part of of the critical discourse. The cultural critic stages himself as an outsider to his own culture, a position which enables him to analyze and evaluate its characteristics and development without being tainted by the culture that is criticized. It is clear, of course, that this position can never be realized. The circular nature of cultural criticism has often been pointed out. One could ask, however, if this philosophical argument is the only one to make. Possibly, the perspective of discourse analysis could go further and show not only that, but how – from a semantical point of view – cultural criticism is part of the very modernity it reacts to.

This might be understood in three ways. First, the discourse of cultural criticism both rejuvenates and reforms several older critical traditions, such as religious criticism, moralism and the criticism of luxury and of politeness. Careful semantical research may show how these traditions are transformed in the light of the newly emerging historical understanding. This may also help to contextualize the discourse and thus give a historical account of the linguistic forms of its articulation. To this end, the discourse of cultural criticism will be traced in five thematic fields (thus resulting in five main chapters) in which it is especially virulent: cultural history, politeness and civility, luxury and commerce, language, knowledge.

Second, the discourse of cultural criticism must be interpreted in the light of its opposition to and interaction with other competing discourses. Interdiscursive analysis can shown how the discourse receives its form at least partially by its opposition to other contemporary discourses that are perceived to be dominant. Modes of speech, metaphors and concepts that are deemed symptomatic for cultural decadence are reinterpreted, parodied and reversed in the light of the experience of loss and of uneasiness with the direction of cultural development.

Third, it might be useful to view the circularity of the critical discourse not so much as logically flawed, but as semantically productive. Thus, the abstract argument against the possibility of cultural criticism could make way for the careful linguistic analysis of its – very real – functioning. Any given discourse may contain different structural elements or logics that do not reinforce each other, or indeed may even be mutually contradicting. In the case of cultural criticism it is clear that the critic has to use the categories,  as well as the language of the culture he wants to criticize. This circularity, however, does not in any way hinder the articulation of new criticism. Indeed, it might even produce more of it. Since every criticism is necessarily “tainted”, the need arises for the constant updating of its semantical tools. Thus, cultural criticism becomes a never-ending task.

Cultural criticism is not an institutionalized discourse that controls the production of its texts, nor is it genre-specific. Its discursive forms are disseminated over many different linguistic contexts. This means that  it’s study will have to entail a wide range of different source materials. It will have to be traced through different textual genres (pamphlets, journal articles, monographs, literary works, etc.), debates (the reception of Ossian, reactions to the French Revolution, etc.), and even languages. The familiar hypothesis of cultural criticism as a typically (or more dramatic, exclusively) German phenomenon can only be revised in the light of a transnational – or more precisely a translingual – perspective. The study of French and English, as well as German sources, will make it possible to identify the common characteristics of the discourse cultural criticism as a general Western European phenomenon, as well as distinguish specific national traditions in its articulation.

For more information (in German), visit the GESIS Research Database.