As the cinematic witch is female and has much supernatural power available to her, it is clear that her position in societal power structures is important, as is her ability to influence said power structures and those who enable them. To aid in the study of the witch as found in horror films one would need a theoretical framework that would assist in identifying and analysing her appearances in horror films over the last century. New Historicism seems apt in this regard due to its focus on the intersections between text and sociocultural contexts and how texts and the sociocultural reciprocally influence one another over time. New Historicism is discussed in detail later in this section. Before discussing New Historicism, we need to understand its prehistory.
In the preface of Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, written by Michael Cole and Sylvia Scribner, Vygotsky is credited as the father of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1979:341). As mentioned in the introduction, much can be learned of human social and mental activities by analysing and understanding culturally constructed artefacts (Vygotsky, 1978:53- 54). These artefacts (like films and their production) evolve as they pass from one generation to the next due to the ever-changing needs of social networks (Lantolf, 2000:1-2).
This is similar to the ideas posited by cultural studies theorists who study the tension and relationship between cultures and the resultant effect they have on the literary texts that cultures produce
(Womack, 2001:243). This theoretical framework enables the reader to explore a myriad of cultural codes embedded throughout a text as they intersect sociological, linguistic, and historic forces and how they impact the dissemination and reception of a text (Womack, 2001:243).
New Historicist theories are related to both these schools of thought due to their focus on specific historical conditions or events that influence the creation of literary texts as well as sociocultural change and ideologies (Brannigan, 2001:169-170). The text and the time during which it was created are linked on a deeper level and cannot be separated from each other (Barry, 2009:166). New
Historicist theorists argue that literature reflects our notions of history due to how the texts represent history which in turn affects how we view and experience history (Brannigan, 2001:170). In other words: it studies a text as something that reflects a broad historical context and not just as recorded objective truths. Texts or films can also warp our sense of history and the way history is recorded.
Vygotsky (1978:64-65) argues for a similar approach and states that to discover the true essence or nature of something, whether it is a book, a painting, or a film, one must study it in all its phases from its inception to end.
42
Simply put, social and cultural forces, can be argued, are influenced by the creators of literature and films, which in turn are entrenched in the zeitgeist, politics, and progress of the time. Films, or artefacts, not only mirror these social and cultural forces, but also influence them through
reinforcement or suggested change. This can be demonstrated by evaluating and comparing the way the witch’s body is constructed in film and the zeitgeist of the time in which the films were produced.
Furthermore, those who produce horror films adhere to various tropes and conventions which are frequently reframed or reinvigorated in later films. The tropes themselves can be described as the reverberations as they reappear and are reshaped by sociocultural influences over time, as will be elaborated on later in this section.
The most prominent New Historicists are Michel Foucault, Catherine Gallagher, Stephen Greenblatt, Alan Sinfield, Catherine Belsey, Lee Patterson, and Marjorie Levinson12. They all have made significant contributions to the theory, as is discussed below.
In 1979’s Panopticism, Michel Foucault makes a case regarding the separation of social classes due to plagues and diseases which ravaged villages and cities at the end of the seventeenth century and thus lays the foundations for New Historicism. To curb the spread of the plague, those in power created structures within these congested areas that kept a watchful eye on the citizens, while also enforcing a strict curfew (Foucault, 1996:11-12). Certain individuals were granted carte blanche to keep the curfew in effect, by doing so keeping the diseased rabble away from those in power (Foucault, 1996:11-12). Society is consequently broken up into two groups, namely the pure community (monarchies and those in power) and the disciplined society at large (the rest of society) (Foucault, 1996:13). These groups are further diversified and organised with only the depth of control and surveillance intensifying as one goes further down the proverbial social ladder (Foucault, 1996:13).
Foucault (1996:13) states that control is exercised by grouping certain individuals together, depending on financial status, power, and race (level of inherent danger), and then controlling their relations with others. In other words, society is organised according to binaries and brand (mad/sane,
normal/abnormal, et cetera) (Foucault, 1996:14). In consequence power contains society as opposed to subverting it (Patterson, 1987:95). Foucault’s theory suggests that power directs the structure of society and that those who have the means will influence society through whatever means (the media and religion) necessary to sustain and perpetuate the status quo.
12 These theorists can all be referred to as New Historicists or cultural materialists. The only difference between the two labels is the geography of the two groups, with the New Historicists residing in the United States of America and the Cultural Materialists residing in the United Kingdom (Ryan, 1996:ix).
43
Over time, Foucault’s ideas led to the rise of two schools of thought based on the abovementioned proposed theories. In the United Kingdom it led to the formation of the Cultural Materialists and in the United States of America the New Historicists were born (Ryan, 1996:ix). The schools have much in common and it has become difficult to differentiate between them (Ryan, 1996:x). Initially New Historicists focussed on power structures and how they only permit identification and counter identification of those within society, while the cultural materialists were more interested in the possibility of individuals' refusal to accept their place in society and thus producing new ones (Brooker, Seldon, Widdowson, 2005:185-186). This is not the case anymore, since and in essence they all more or less agree on the following (Ryan, 1996:xi): “…united by their compulsion to relate literature to history, to treat texts as indivisible contexts, and to do so from a politically charged perspective forged in the present.”
The only differences between these theorists are the different routes they take to achieve the same objectives and the resulting different conclusions they seem to draw once the said goal has been achieved (Brannigan, 1998:119; Ryan, 1996:xi). John Brannigan for instance argues that both are concerned with difference and how the past differs from our contemporary understanding and uses of the past (Brannigan, 1998:119). Like Ryan, he argues that both originally examined differences in history, or histories, but later changed their focus to the differences in race, gender, nationality, etc.
(Brannigan, 1998:120). Along with Foucault’s theories, one also has to consider the role of New Criticism and Historicism in the formation of New Historicism. These perspectives will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
Catherine Gallagher is the first of these New Historicists to consider. She disagrees with Foucault’s assumptions about power and suggests that it is erroneous to insist that these divisions are solely caused and influenced by power and politics (Gallagher, 1996:45). She posits that the structures become political after they are formed and that they are not necessarily formed by individuals in an attempt to wield power over others (Gallagher, 1996:45). In other words, patriarchy was not initially the goal, but was borne spontaneously out of the mechanisms put in place by said society at large due to historic events. Politics are therefore secondary and that which subverts, becomes the norm later on (Gallagher, 1996:45-46). By resisting the urge to categorise those in society and by ignoring labels and identity creation, those with non-identities will not be subversive and will inhibit cultural hierarchies (Gallagher, 1996:54). Politics are, in other words, a secondary layer and the New Historicist must be able to transcend politics (Gallagher, 1996:46). Stephen Greenblatt has a similar stance and states that theorists’ obsession with power and gender is fundamentally flawed (Greenblatt, 1990:18). Instead he proposes three stances or guidelines for historical studies.
44
His first stance suggests that agency is inescapable and whether one decides to act or not to act, implies intent (Greenblatt, 1990:15). Every person in society is conditioned by the expectations of the class, gender, religion, race and national identity they find themselves in. These variables are
constantly in flux with the world around us, effectively changing the trajectory of history (Greenblatt, 1990:15). He suggests that even though historical processes are unavoidable and unchangeable, these processes do seem to indicate that the individual’s power is bound within a societal collective and that attempts to subvert might lead to legitimisation of societal structures (Greenblatt, 1990:15).
His second stance is that the past and the present are inexorably linked with one another as events of the past created the foundations for the present (Greenblatt, 1990:16). Furthermore, the past often lends itself to the future as an analogy from which we can analyse the present, which means that the theorist’s values cannot be suspended when attempting an analysis (Greenblatt, 1990:16).
His third contribution to the study of history is to avoid viewing every miniscule part of a text as important or having deeper meaning, or to attempt to marry these insignificant events to the main plot (Greenblatt, 1990:17). The New Historicist should not attempt to integrate every event or sub-plot into the larger narrative, but should be more interested in discovering what the contradictions and unresolved conflicts communicate on their own (Greenblatt, 1990:17-18). He especially makes a case for the study of cultural expressions such as witchcraft accusations, technical manuals, and even fashion to reveal the complexities of society (Greenblatt, 1990:19).
From these three tenets, Greenblatt configured his theories regarding resonance and wonder.
Greenblatt (1990:19) defines resonance as the ability of a text to reach out to the viewer irrespective of the time and place the viewer finds themselves in. He says:
By "resonance" I mean the power of the object displayed to reach out beyond its formal boundaries to a larger world, to evoke in the viewer the complex, dynamic cultural forces from which it has emerged and for which-as metaphor or, more simply, as metonymy-it may be taken by a viewer to stand. By "wonder" I mean the power of the object displayed to stop the viewer in his tracks, to convey an arresting sense of uniqueness, to evoke an exalted attention (Greenblatt, 1990:19-20).
According to Greenblatt a text is not confined to the limitations of the medium in which it is created.
The text reverberates a complex network of cultural meanings which are interpreted and often originate from the viewer’s sociocultural position at a specific point in time, while the aesthetic
45
experience forces the viewer’s immediate attention. These influences change over time and are uniquely interpreted by each subsequent viewing. The interactions between viewer and text lead to influence and can be reshaped, redirected, or assimilated by the viewer which. This is however directly related to the ability of the text to engage with the viewer at a deeper sociocultural and intellectual level as well as the visual aesthetic experience of the viewer (Greenblatt, 1990:20-21, 23, 29-31, 33-34).
Alan Sinfield is from the school of cultural materialism and the gist of his theoretical assumptions can be found in an article he wrote in response to the aforementioned Stephen Goldblatt’s 1990 article, Resonance and Wonder (Sinfield, 1992:61). Sinfield (1992:63-64) suggests that society produces ideology in an attempt to find meaning for ourselves and for others in the world. It structures society and places the individual into an understandable social context. Ideology lends itself to stories and narratives by giving shape to them, which in turn supports the various levels of power (Sinfield, 1992:64). These power structures influence the way the individual thinks, but individual thought is unable to influence or change these power structures (Sinfield, 1992:68). Even when the individual stands as oppositional force to these structures, he or she simply legitimises the structures even more.
For example, feminism was not created in isolation or from a privileged position away from societal norms, but originated and evolved from within a patriarchal society. Sinfield (1992:72) suggests that these conflicts and contradictions are formed within a society in an attempt to sustain itself. A society cannot be deemed as patriarchal without having an understanding of the matriarchal. The same can be said of texts and their implied meanings. The text is not self-sufficient in meaning, but is a site rich in conflicts borne from ideology (Sinfield, 1992:80). A text thus relies on the reader’s ideologies to create meaning which means there are no homogenous interpretations of texts. According to Sinfield (1992:81) a text’s meaning is derived from its ability to reinforce or challenge the reader’s notions of society or how it ought to be.
Catherine Belsey (1989:83) believes that all texts are to an extent policed and that the texts that challenge the structures of power relating to class, race or gender are considered to be of little value and/or flawed. She posits that these literary standards were created by those who wield power (Belsey, 1989:84) and that New Historicists are able to transcend this by not avoiding distinctions between literature and history, or in other words, text and context (Belsey, 1989:83). This means that interpretations are more open and varied, since traditional oppositions and distinctions are ignored.
She takes her argument a step further than the previously discussed theorists in the sense that she wants theorists to treat works of art and texts from the same time as equals (Belsey, 1989:84). This means any visual text, like a film, a television series, the news, a printed or television advertisement
46
can be used for analysis as they are all products of the cultural-historic context in which they were created.
Finally, she stresses the importance of understanding that the meanings of these products are not fixed (Belsey, 1989:89) and that truth can only be subjective (Belsey, 1989:90). Those who wield power are often challenged, for instance, by the others which lead to alternative interpretations of knowledge. It does not mean one is more right than the other, but it does create new avenues for discussion which inevitably leads to changes in society as we have seen over the last 50 years where gay rights, climate change, colonisation, and women’s rights are concerned.
Lee Patterson (1987:92) believes that history should be read as a poem – not as fact, but as something textual with a myriad of interpretations. Interestingly, he theorised that power is part of culture and not something that is possessed by an individual or a group (Patterson,1987:94). He uses the example of public and state executions to illustrate this point. In the past the state would display its power by ordering the execution of those who committed crimes of treason or other crimes which threatened the hegemony (Patterson, 1987:93-94). This display of power is absent in most western and developed countries yet individuals still conform to these rules without the state having to thrust upon them the fear of death or torture (Patterson, 1987:93-94). This power or invisible force which drives the individual to conform is thus engrained into society. This same power also cannot exist without freedom, since to attain freedom one must have power (Patterson, 1987:93). For example, to have a society where crime is kept relatively in check so that families can feel safe and experience freedom, certain structures of power have to exist to maintain the law and to punish those who threaten those who conform to societal and cultural values.
Much like Alan Sinfield and Catherine Belsey, Patterson (1987:100) posits that history and meaning are not fixed and that meaning is subject to the struggles and contradictions in a text, but with a new meaning generated with each new interpretation. Hence there is no “norm of correctness”, but only the reader/viewer’s historical moment in the here and now which influences his or her normative ideals (Patterson, 1987:99).
Finally, there is Marjorie Levinson (1989:107), who focusses more on the reader, viewer, and researcher’s role in New Historic studies:
“…we really are part of the object we study, subject to the changes that our study effects…”
47 She continues (Levinson, 1989:108):
“…we are the effects of particulars, to which we are related by distance and difference.
…name ourselves as products of the past as past and thus of history’s meaning.”
For Levinson, we are products of the past and conditioned to view the past through a present perspective that is also and continually influenced and shaped by the past. This past was also
experienced as the present by individuals within that particular society and it was also shaped by past events. It is thus not about the past or translating it for a contemporary or even future audience, but more about the differences between the present and the past age that are being scrutinised (Levinson, 1989:108-110). Works of art and text do not just survive, they also flare up at certain points of time through the ages due to their timelessness and the way they can be interpreted by new and future audiences to find truth in their present (Levinson, 1989:109-110). We consequently change the past and the meanings attributed to it by finding new ways of analysis, which in turn influences these meanings and also the methods of analysis.
The theorists discussed up to this point laid the foundations for New Historicism. Their work is not without problems and has elicited criticism from various quarters. One of these is the sometimes over- reliance on a single text as evidence to prove a statement (Barry, 2009:171; Levinson, 2012:359;
Veeser, 1989:x). Another is that Marxism is very often tightly embedded or closely associated with the New Historicist process (Barry, 2009:171; Veeser, 1989:x-xi, xiii)13. These issues can be problematic for those who would attempt a New Historicist research project, since they have the potential to make a study seem too prescriptive. One cannot rely on a single and often anecdotal text as sufficient evidence to make any scientific observation. The aforementioned problem of New Historicists often building on Marxism can also lead to unoriginal and narrow studies. This leads to similar findings between researchers, but that does not mean that the findings are correct or without fault.
Marxism as ideology is a reaction towards western capitalism and is concerned with the
dismantlement of capitalism in favour of creating a socialist society (Worsley, 2003:1). Marxism is an especially popular approach amongst those in the realm of cultural studies and it is very often used as a starting point for those in that field (Hutnyk, 2004:2). For the New Historicist, Marxism is valuable for the same reasons as it is motivates why certain power structures exist in society. As discussed earlier, Foucault and Gallagher also focus on power structures with regards to economic class which
13 See Eagleton, 2018:ix-xii; Gallagher & Greenblatt, 2000:9; and Sinfield, 1992:66-67 in support of this claim.