Literature and Society



In the early 1930s Leavis wrote two articles attacking what he saw as the limitations of Marxism. The first, ‘Under Which King, Bezonian?’ appeared in Scrutiny on 3 December 1932, the second, ‘Marxism and Cultural Continuity’ formed the prefatory statement to Leavis’s first collection of essays, For Continuity, published in 1933. A third article, ‘Restatement for Critics’, which appeared in Scrutiny on 4 March 1933, also addressed the challenge of Marxism though this was not its major concern.1


Organic Community Scientific Management Popular Culture Mass Civilisation Literary Criticism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Marxism and Cultural Continuity’, preface to For Continuity (Cambridge: Minority Press, 1933) pp. 7–12; ‘Under Which King Bezonian?’, Scrutiny 1:3, December 1932, pp. 202–15; and ’Restatement for Critics’, Scrutiny 1:4, March 1933, pp. 315–23. All reprinted in F.R. Leavis, Valuation in Criticism and Other Essays, ed. G. Singh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) pp. 31–7; 38–45 and 46–53 respectively. Hereafter MCC, UWKB and RFC with page references - from Valuation in Criticism - given in the text. Strictly speaking ‘Restatement for Critics’ is, as Ian MacKillop notes, more to do with ‘the impact made upon Leavis by the appearance of Lawrence’s letters’ (edited by Huxley) which Leavis had reviewed in December 1932, Ian MacKillop, F.R. Leavis: A Life in Criticism (Harmondsworth: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1995) p. 190. For further details see M.B. Kinch, William Baker and John Kimber, F.R. Leavis and Q.D. Leavis: An Annotated Bibliography (New York: Garland Publishing, 1989) p.42. Nevertheless, Leavis’s comments on Marxism in that article, together with the date of it justify its being grouped with the other two. Another article that could be included on the same basis is ‘Towards Standards of Criticism’ in F.R. Leavis Anna Karenina and Other Essays (London: Chatto & Windus, 1967/1973) pp. 219–34, which was originally the introduction to Towards Standards of Criticism: Selections from the Calendar of Modern Letters (London: Wishart, 1933) pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Francis Mulhern, The Moment ofScrutiny’ (London: Verso, 1979), pp. 79–80. The words are Mulhern’s. Compare Leavis, ‘the inevitability (and desirability) of drastic social change makes an active concern for cultural continuity the more essential’, F.R. Leavis, ‘Towards Standards of Criticism’, pp. 225–6.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    A.L. Morton, ‘Culture and Leisure’ in Scrutiny 1:4, March 1933, pp. 324–6, 324.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Iain Wright, ‘F.R. Leavis: The Scrutiny Movement and the Crisis’ in Jon Clark, Margot Heinemann, David Margolies and Carol Snee (eds) Culture and Crisis in Britain in the Thirties (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1979) pp. 37–65, 55.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    David Margolies ‘Left Review and Left Literary Theory’ in ibid., pp. 67–82, 68. See also Valentine Cunningham, who comments that the most typical understanding of the Marxist throughout the 1930s was of someone ‘prompt in sliding the analysis from one kind of crisis to another, from economics to the imagination, to the threat of war without once letting the argument falter’, Valentine Cunningham, British Writers of the Thirties (Oxford: Oxford University press, 1989) p. 42.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Wright, ‘F.R. Leavis: The Scrutiny Movement and the Crisis’ p. 54. Wright implies Butterfield was a Marxist but this is debatable. In The Whig Interpretation of History (New York: Norton, 1931/1965) Butterfield had attacked historians like Macaulay and Trevelyan for interpreting the past according to the needs of the present. The implication was that the present could not be explained as determined by the past, which was precisely the Marxist view: the contemporary crisis as determined by the history of class struggle. As B.J. Atkinson observes, ‘Butterfield, at this time, conceived of history as a means not of solving problems but of making people realize how complicated they were’, B.J. Atkinson ‘Historiography’ in C.B. Cox and A.E. Dyson (eds) The Twentieth Century Mind: History, Ideas and Literature in Britain 2: 1918–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) pp. 57–67, 62. As Butterfield himself noted, ‘[t]he last word of the historian is not some fine, firm general statement; it is a piece of detailed research’, The Whig Interpretation of History, p. 73. This accent on the concrete matches Leavis’s own and so there is less difference between them than Wright implies.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    H. Butterfield, ‘History and the Marxian Method’ in Scrutiny 1:4, March 1933, pp. 339–55. This is, of course, the same issue which contains ‘Restatement for Critics’.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    Perry Anderson, ‘Components of the National Culture’, New Left Review 50, July—August 1968, pp. 3–57, 53.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘The Marxian Analysis: A Review of The Mind in Chains, ed. C. Day Lewis (London: Muller, 1937) and Capitalist and Socialist by Beryl Pring (London: Methuen, 1937) in Scrutiny 6:2, September 1937, pp. 201–4, 203. Hereafter TMA with page references given in the text. For an account of middle-class writers and Marxism see Cunningham, British Writers of the Thirties, pp. 211–14.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    The question of Leavis and class deserves more attention than can be given here not least because class itself is such a notoriously difficult term to define, a fact not helped by its having been eclipsed in recent years by considerations of gender, sexuality and ethnicity. For accounts of Leavis and class see Noel Annan, ‘Bloomsbury and the Leavises’, in Jane Marcus (ed.) Virginia Woolf and Bloomsbury: A Centenary Celebration (London: Macmillan, 1987) pp. 23–38 and F.W. Bateson, ’The Scrutiny Phenomenon’ in Sewanee Review 85:1, January—March 1977, pp. 144–52. Neither of these is particularly satisfactory, not least because they each assume a ‘classless’ position against which Leavis can seem petty and resentful.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Francis Mulhern (ed.) Contemporary Marxist Literary Criticism (London: Longman, 1992) pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    The relevant essays here would be ‘Contradiction and Overdetermination’ and ‘On the Materialist Dialectic’, both in Louis Althusser, For Marx, trans. Ben Brewster (London: New Left Books, 1977) pp. 89–128,163–218. See also ‘A Letter on Art’ in Louis Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. Ben Brewster (London: New Left Books,1977) vv. 221–7.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    It is perfectly possible to interpret this statement in an altogether different way. Leavis’s emphasis on a discriminating minority and his equation of literature with order and hierarchy means that it can function in schools and universities as a way of reproducing and reinforcing the class divisions of capitalist society and hence it cannot so easily be seen as a means of resistance to that society. This claim has been made by John Willinsky who writes that Leavis’s work ’could serve as what has been described as the school’s legitimating role in the reproduction of social stratification’. John Willinsky, ‘Leavis,Google Scholar
  14. Literary Theory and Public Education’, Mosaic 21: 2–3, 1988, pp. 165–77,173. On the relationship between education and ideology see Louis Althusser, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, pp. 127–86. On the use of literature in education see Pierre Macherey and Etienne Balibar, ‘On Literature as an Ideological Form’, in Mulhern Contemporary Marxist Literary Criticism, pp. 34–54.Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    See Antony Easthope, British Post-Structuralism Since 1968 (London: Routledge, 1988) pp. 19, 20.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Jean Baudrillard ‘The Mirror of Production’, in Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings, ed. Mark Poster (Oxford/Cambridge: Polity Press/Basil Blackwell, 1988) pp. 98–118,102.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Ibid., p. 103.Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    For an account of the relationship between literature and scientific management see James F. Knapp, Literary Modernism and the Transformation of Work (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1988) esp. pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (London: Harper Row, 1911/1964) p. 74.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Standards of Criticism’, in Leavis, Valuation in Criticism and Other Essays, pp. 244–52, 252. Hereafter SC with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Judgement and Analysis’, in The Living Principle: ‘Englishas a Discipline of Thought (London: Chatto & Windus, 1975) pp. 71–154, 108. Hereafter J& A with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  22. 28.
    George Sturt implies this in his comparative valuations of the sawyers and the wheelwrights. See George Sturt, The Wheelwrights Shop (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923/1993) Chapters IV and VII.Google Scholar
  23. 38.
    Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society: England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989). Ironically, there was a work science journal called The Human Factor, which was published during the late 1920s and early 1930s. See Gary Cross, Time and Money: The Making of Consumer Culture (London: Routledge, 1993) p. 97.Google Scholar
  24. 39.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘T. S. Eliot and English Literature’, in Valuation in Criticism, pp. 129–47, 142. Hereafter TSE & EL with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  25. 40.
    T.W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections From Damaged Life, trans. E.F.N. Jephcott (London: Verso, 1978/1993) p. 47.Google Scholar
  26. 41.
    Henri Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life, trans. John Moore (London: Verso, 1947/1991) D. 61.Google Scholar
  27. 42.
    Ibid., p. 41.Google Scholar
  28. 43.
    Ibid., p. 56.Google Scholar
  29. 44.
    Ibid., p. 57.Google Scholar
  30. 45.
    Ibid., p. 42.Google Scholar
  31. 46.
    Ibid., p. 48.Google Scholar
  32. 47.
    Ibid.. p.49.Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    See, for example, John Fiske, Understanding Popular Culture (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989). For a good overview of the field of cultural studies see David Harris, From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure: The Effects of Gramscianism on Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 1992).Google Scholar
  34. 49.
    See Harris, From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure and Stephen Regan (ed.) The Politics of Pleasure: Aesthetics and Cultural Theory (Buckingham: Open University Press/Anglia Polytechnic University, 1992). For the view that pleasure should be the sole end of criticism see Barbara Kruger, Remote Control: Power, Cultures and the World of Appearances (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993). This view should be balanced against the following remark from Adorno: Pleasure always means not to think about anything, to forget suffering even when it is shown. Basically it is helplessness. It is flight; not as it is asserted, flight from a wretched reality, but from the last remaining thought of resistance. The liberation which amusement promises is freedom from thought and negation. (’The Culture Industry: Enlightenment As Mass Deception’, in Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1944/1992) pp. 120–67, 144.) Baudrillard makes a similar point. See Baudrillard, ‘Consumer Society’, in Baudrillard, Selected Writings, pp. 29–56, 46.Google Scholar
  35. 50.
    Georg Simmel, ‘Subjective Culture’, in Georg Simmel, On Individuality and Social Forms, ed. Donald Levine (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971) pp. 227–34, 228.Google Scholar
  36. 51.
    T.W. Adorno, ‘Culture and Administration’, in T.W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, ed. J.M. Bernstein (London: Routledge,1991) pp. 93–113, 98.Google Scholar
  37. 56.
    Cross, Time and Money: The Making of Consumer Culture, p. 57. See also George Lansbury, My England (London: Selwyn & Blount, 1934). This forms a useful complement to the works of George Sturt. See also Martin Weiner, English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 1850–1980, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) Chapter 4, esp. pp. 118–21; and Alun Hawkins, ‘The Discovery of Rural England’, in Robert Colls and Philip Dodd (eds) Englishness: Politics and Culture (London: Croom Helm, 1986) pp. 63–88.Google Scholar
  38. 57.
    Catherine Belsey, Critical Practice (London: Methuen, 1980) provides a clear overview of this development.Google Scholar
  39. 58.
    Malcolm Bradbury, ‘The Impact of Literary Theory’, in Lisa Appignanesi (ed.), Ideas from France: The Legacy of French Theory (London: Free Association Books, 1989) pp. 7–15, 12.Google Scholar
  40. 59.
    See Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989) p. 160.Google Scholar
  41. 60.
    Criticism is used in its widest sense here, referring not just to literary criticism but to cultural criticism as well. In Leavis, of course, there was a close relation between the two. For an account of how’uneritical’ criticism can be see Christopher Norris, Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1992).Google Scholar
  42. 61.
    See O.L. Zangwill, ‘Psychology’ in C.B. Cox and A.E. Dyson (eds), The Twentieth Century Mind: History, Ideas and Literature in Britain 2: 1918–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) pp. 171–95.Google Scholar
  43. 63.
    Arthur Koestler, ‘The Initiates’, Richard Crossman (ed.) The God That Failed: Six Studies in Communism (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1950) pp. 25–32, 30.Google Scholar
  44. 64.
    C.L. Mowat, Britain Between the Wars 1918–1939 (London: Methuen, 1955) p. 523.Google Scholar
  45. 65.
    W.W. Robson, Modern English Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970) p. 125.Google Scholar
  46. 66.
    John Stevenson, British Society 1914–1945 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984/1990) p. 112.Google Scholar
  47. 68.
    Ibid., p. 381. The dance hall was one place where bodies were massed together. Although they represented a kind of freedom, for example, ’greater opportunities for women to go out and enjoy themselves’ they also contained the pleasures, energies, ‘undisciplined steps’ and ‘lack of propriety in bodily movements’ unleashed by the ‘wild sounds of “jazz”’. (Iain Chambers, Popular Culture: The Metropolitan Experience(London: Routledge, 1986) p. 135.) This containment was the work of ’a growing army of dance instructors led by Victor Sylvester, and the increasingly predictable metronome rhythms of the white dance bands’ (ibid., pp. 135–6).Google Scholar
  48. 69.
    J.B. Priestly, English Journey (London: Heinemann, 1934/1968) p. 314.Google Scholar
  49. 70.
    A.J.P. Taylor, quoted in Norman Page, The Thirties in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1990) p. 30. The quotation comes from A.J.P. Taylor, English History 1914–1945 (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1970) p. 433.Google Scholar
  50. 71.
  51. 72.
    G.D.H. and M.I. Cole The Condition of Britain (London: Gollancz, 1937) mentioned in Stevenson. British Society 1914–1945, p. 345.Google Scholar
  52. 73.
    John Hilton, Rich Man, Poor Man (New York: Garland 1938/1944), mentioned in Stevenson, British Society 1914–1945, p. 345.Google Scholar
  53. 74.
    R.D. Charques, Contemporary Literature and the Social Revolution (London: Martin Secker, 1933) pp. 48–9. But see also George Orwell, ’Inside the Whale’ in Inside the Whale and Other Essays (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1957/1988) pp. 9–50.Google Scholar
  54. 77.
    Edgell Rickword, ‘Culture, Progress and English Tradition’, in Edgell Rickword, Literature in Society: Essays and Opinions II, ed. A. Young (Manchester: Carcanet Press, 1978) pp. 93–104, 93.Google Scholar
  55. 79.
    Pasi Falk, The Consuming Body (London: Sage, 1994) p. 137.Google Scholar
  56. 82.
    Brian Massumi, ‘Everywhere You Want To Be: Introduction to Fear’, in Brian Massumi (ed.) The Politics of Everyday Fear (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), pp. 3–38, 7.Google Scholar
  57. 86.
    Mark Seltzer, Bodies and Machines (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 6.Google Scholar
  58. 87.
    Ibid., p. 14.Google Scholar
  59. 89.
    Humphrey Jennings and Charles Madge (eds), Mass Observation DaySurvey: May 12 1937 (London: Faber, 1937/1987) p. iv. On Mass Observation see also Angus Calder and Dorothy Sheridan, Speak for Yourself A Mass Observation Anthology 1937–1949 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1984).Google Scholar
  60. 90.
    Ibid., p. iii.Google Scholar
  61. 91.
    Ibid., p. iv.Google Scholar
  62. 93.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Thought, Language and Objectivity’ in Leavis, The Living Principle, pp. 19–69, 49. Hereafter TL & O with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  63. 97.
    On one page of one essay the word ‘assert’ occurs three times, the word ’force’ twice and the words ‘drive’ and ‘insist’ once. F.R. Leavis, ’English, “Unrest” and Continuity’, in F.R. Leavis, Nor Shall My Sword: Discourses on Pluralism, Compassion and Social Hope (London: Chatto & Windus, 1972) pp. 103–33, 120. Hereafter referred to as ELI & C, with page references given in the text. This should give some indication of how central to his criticism is Leavis’s vocabulary of force.Google Scholar
  64. 99.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Reading Out Poetry’, in Leavis, Valuation in Criticism and Other Essays’, pp. 253–75, 268. Hereafter ROP, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  65. 100.
    For an overview of the role of the body in social theory see Bryan S. Turner, ‘Recent Developments in the Theory of the Body’, in Mike Featherstone, Mike Hepworth and Bryan S. Turner, (eds). The Body: Social Processes and Cultural Theory (London: Sage,1991/1992) pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
  66. 101.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Johnson As Poet’, in F.R. Leavis, The Common Pursuit (Harmondsworth: Penguin/Chatto & Windus, 1962/1993) pp. 116–20, 118. Hereafter JAP with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  67. 102.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Literary Criticism and Philosophy’, in ibid., pp. 211–22, 213. Hereafter C & P, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  68. 103.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Johnson and Augustanism’, in ibid., pp. 97–115, 110. Hereafter JA, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  69. 104.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Sociology and Literature’, in ibid., pp. 195–203, 200. Hereafter S & L, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  70. 105.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘The Responsible Critic: Or the Function of Criticism at Any Time’, in Leavis, Valuation in Criticism and Other Essays, pp. 194–206, 195. Hereafter RC, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  71. 107.
    Roy Johnson, quoted in ibid., p.154. Falk gives the source as Printers Ink 75, 25 May 1911, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  72. 108.
    Jacques Lacan, The Seminars of Jacques Lacan Book I: Freuds Papers on Technique 1953–1954, trans. John Forrester, ed. Jacques Alain Miller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) p. 183.Google Scholar
  73. 109.
  74. 110.
    Jacques Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (London: Tavistock Publications, 1977) p. 68.Google Scholar
  75. 111.
    Ibid., p. 85.Google Scholar
  76. 112.
    Ibid., P. 86.Google Scholar
  77. 113.
    Jacques Lacan, Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis, trans. Anthony Wilden (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968/1994) p. 30.Google Scholar
  78. 116.
    F.R. Leavis, “Two Cultures? The Significance of Lord Snow, in Leavis, Nor Shall My Sword: Discourses on Pluralism, Compassion and Social Hope, pp. 41–74, 62. Hereafter TC, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  79. 119.
    Thomas Haskell, quoted in Seltzer, Bodies and Machines, p. 73. The quotation comes from Thomas Haskell, ‘Capitalism and the Origins of Humanitarian Sensibility, Part Two’, in The American Historical Review 90: 2, June 1985, pp. 534–63, 553. Compare Lacan, ‘The human action... is originally founded on the existence of the world of the symbol, namely on laws and contracts’, Lacan, The Seminars of Jacques Lacan Book 1: Freuds Papers on Techniaue 1953–1954, p. 230.Google Scholar
  80. 125.
    Jack Lindsay, John Bunyan: Maker of Myths (London: Methuen, 1937). Leavis also takes issue, in this essay, with William Tindall’s John Bunyan: Mechanick Preacher (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1934).Google Scholar
  81. 126.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’, in F.R. Leavis, Anna Karenina and Other Essays (London: Chatto & Windus, 1967/1973) pp. 33–48, 1. Hereafter PP with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  82. 127.
    Notes 127–35 give quotations only from Lukács as there are numerous examples of the same features of Leavis’s work throughout my argument. The ‘self-contained immediacy [of] the work of art’, Georg Lukács ‘Art and Objective Truth’ quoted in Raman Selden (ed.) The Theory of Criticism: From Plato to the Present (London: Longman, 1988) pp. 59–66, 60. The quotation comes from Georg Lukács, ‘Art and Objective Truth’, Georg Lukács, Writer and Critic and Other Essays, ed. and trans. Arthur Kahn (London: Merlin Press, 1970) pp. 34–43, 37.Google Scholar
  83. 129.
    I he novel should aim at ‘sensuous representation’, Georg Lukács, The Theory of the Novel, trans. Anna Bostock (London: Merlin Press, 1971) p. 79.Google Scholar
  84. 137.
    Georg Lukács, ‘The Novels of Willi Bredel’, in Lukács, Essays on Realism, pp. 23–32, 29.Google Scholar
  85. 138.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Introductory’, in Leavis, Nor Shall My Sword: Discourses on Pluralism, Compassion and Social Hope,. pp. 11–37, 20.Google Scholar
  86. 139.
    Terence Hawkes, Meaning By Shakespeare (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 71.Google Scholar
  87. NO. F.K. Leavis, ‘Tragedy and the Medium’, in Leavis, The Common Pursuit, pp. 121–35, 130. Hereafter T & M, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  88. 141.
    Terry Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso, 1991) p.18.Google Scholar
  89. 142.
    Ibid., p. 200.Google Scholar
  90. 143.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Anna Karenina: Thought and Significance in a Great Creative Work’, in Anna Karenina and Other Essays, pp. 9–32,14.Google Scholar
  91. 144.
    Antony Easthope, Literary Into Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 1991) p. 66.Google Scholar
  92. 145.
    F.R. Leavis, Thought, Words and Creativity: Art and Thought in Lawrence (London: Chatto & Windus, 1976) p. 34. Hereafter TW & C, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  93. 146.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Henry James and the Function of Criticism’, in Leavis, The Common Pursuit, pp. 223–32, 225. Hereafter HJ & TFOC, with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  94. 147.
    See F.R. Leavis, Pluralism, Compasion and Social Hope’, in Leavis, Nor Shall My Sword: Discourses on Pluralism, Compassion and Social Hope, pp. 163–98, 163.Google Scholar
  95. 149.
    T.W. Adorno, ‘The Schema of Mass Culture’, in Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, pp. 53–84, 79.Google Scholar
  96. 150.
    See, for example, Christopher Norris, Truth and the Ethics of Criticism, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  97. 151.
    F.W. Bateson,’The Funchon of Criticism at the Present Time’, essays in Criticism 3:1,1953, pp. 1–27, 8, quoted by Leavis, RC, p. 199.Google Scholar
  98. 152.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘In Defence of Milton’, in Leavis, The Common Pursuit, pp. 33–43, 35.Google Scholar
  99. 153.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Eliot’s “Axe To Grind” and the Nature of Criticism’, in F.R. Leavis, English Literature in Our Time and the University (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) pp. 85–108, 95–6.Google Scholar
  100. 154.
    Jacques Derrida, ‘Semiology and Grammatology: Interview with Julia Kristeva’, in Positions, trans. Alan Bass (London: Athlone Press/University of Chicago Press, 1987) pp. 17–36,33.Google Scholar
  101. 158.
    Christopher Norris, ‘Derrida and Kant’, in Christopher Norris, Whats Wrong with Postmodernism: Critical Theory and the Ends of Philosophy (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.1990) pp.194–207,195.Google Scholar
  102. 159.
    Nicholas Tredell claims that Leavis and Derrida have much in common because they are ‘anti-philosophers’ and, in doing so, he tends to collapse the differences between them. See Nicholas Tredell, The Critical Decade: Culture in Crisis (Manchester: Carcanet, 1993) pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  103. 160.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Mr. Eliot, Mr. Wyndham Lewis and Lawrence’, in Leavis, The Common Pursuit, pp. 240–47, 246. Hereafter EWL & L with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  104. 161.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Keynes, Spender and Currency Values’, in F.R. Leavis, A Selection from Scrutiny: Volume I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) pp.185–96,195. Hereafter KS & CV with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  105. 162.
    Sigmund Freud,’On Negatiori, in Sigmund Freud, On Metapsychology: The Theory of Psychoanalysis, trans. James Strachey, ed. Angela Richards (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984/1991) pp. 437–43, 438. 163. Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection, p. 286.Google Scholar
  106. 164.
    Jean-Francois Lyotard, ‘The Dream Work Does Not Think’, in The Lyotard Reader, ed. Andrew Benjamin (Oxford/Cambridge MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989) pp. 19–55, 19.Google Scholar
  107. 165.
    John Bunyan, The Pilgrims Progress (Belfast: Ambassador Productions, 1992) p. 50.Google Scholar
  108. 166.
    Ibid., p. 51.Google Scholar
  109. 168.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘What’s Wrong with Criticism’, in F.R. Leavis, For Continuity (Cambridge: Minority Press, 1933) pp. 68–90, 75.Google Scholar
  110. 170.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Mutually Necessary’ in F.R. Leavis, The Critic As AntiPhilosopher, ed. G. Singh (London: Chatto & Windus, 1982) pp. 186–208, 190. Hereafter MN with page references given in the text. It will be noted that this introduces a tactile element into the apprehension of a work which, since it is not related either to ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’, further underlines the point about dissociation. This tactile element of reading is discussed in the next section.Google Scholar
  111. 173.
    See Graham Murdock, ‘Dilemmas of Radical Culture: Forms of Expression and Relations of Production’, in Francis Barker et al., 1936: The Sociology of Literature Volume 2, Practices of Literature and Politics (Colchester: University of Essex, 1979) pp. 21–45, 33–7.Google Scholar
  112. 174.
    Christopher Isherwood, Goodbye to Berlin (London: Hogarth, 1939) p.1.Google Scholar
  113. 175.
    ‘Ordinary still photography’ was used for the first motion studies, then ’stereoscopic photography’ then ‘cine camera’. See Harold Pollard, Development in Management Thought (London: Heinemann, 1974) pp. 23–4.Google Scholar
  114. 177.
    A Foucauldian approach to some of the phenomena I have listed here would strengthen the argument. The relevant book would be Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977/1991) esp. the section entitled ‘Panopticism’, pp. 195–228.Google Scholar
  115. 178.
    Robert Bocock, Consumption (London: Routledge, 1993) p. 89.Google Scholar
  116. 181.
    Derrida’s analysis of the supplement may have some bearing here. See Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976) pp. 141–64, esp. 145.Google Scholar
  117. 184.
    See, for example, Sigmund Freud, ‘Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria (Dora)’, in Sigmund Freud, Case Histories I: ‘DoraandLittle Hans’, trans. Alix and James Strachey, ed. Angela Richards, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977) esp. pp. 45–8.Google Scholar
  118. 185.
    John Thompson, Social Theory, Mass Communication and Public Life’ in Antony Giddens et al., The Polity Reader in Cultural Theory (Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press/Basil Blackwell, 1994) pp. 24–37, 29.Google Scholar
  119. 186.
    Ibid., p. 30.Google Scholar
  120. 187.
  121. 190.
    Jacques Derrida, ‘The First Session’, in Jacques Derrida, Acts of Literature, ed. Derek Attridge (London: Routledge, 1992) pp. 127–80, 133.Google Scholar
  122. 191.
    Ibid., p. 132.Google Scholar
  123. 192.
    Freud, ‘On Negation, p. 441.Google Scholar
  124. 193.
    Ibid., p. 439.Google Scholar
  125. 194.
  126. 195.
    Ibid., p. 440.Google Scholar
  127. 196.
    Ibid., p. 441.Google Scholar
  128. 197.
    Sigmund Freud, ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’, in Freud, On Metapsychology, pp. 275–338, 307, 311.Google Scholar
  129. 198.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Literary Studies: A Reply’, in Leavis, Valuation in Crttictsm and Other Essays, pp. 207–17, 217.Google Scholar
  130. 199.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘The Wild, Untutored Phoenix’, in Leavis, The Common Pursuit pp.231–9 237.Google Scholar
  131. 200.
    Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, ‘The Concept of Enlightenment’ in Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, pp. 3–42, 36.Google Scholar
  132. 201.
    Ibid., p. 22.Google Scholar
  133. 202.
    Ibid., p. 27.Google Scholar
  134. 203.
    Ibid., p. 35.Google Scholar
  135. 204.
    Ibid., p. 25.Google Scholar
  136. 205.
    Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar
  137. 206.
    Jacques Derrida, ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’, in Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (London: Routledue & Kegan Paul,1978/1990) pp. 278–93, 280–1.Google Scholar
  138. 207.
    Michael Bell, F.R. Leavis, (London: Routledge, 1988) p. 49.Google Scholar
  139. 208.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Justifying One’s Valuation of Blake’, in Leavis, The Critic As Anti-Philosopher, pp. 1–23. Hereafter JOVB with page references given in the text.Google Scholar
  140. 209.
    F.R. Leavis, ‘Luddites? Or There Is Only One Culture’, in Leavis, Nor Shall My Sword: Discourses on Pluralism, Compassion and Social Hope, pp. 77–99, 92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gary Day 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.De Montfort UniversityBedfordUK

Personalised recommendations