Canonicité littéraire et écritures postcoloniales : problématique de légitimité discursive des champs émergents

Anne Le Guinio

Description

Cette thèse est une réflexion critique sur les principes de canonicité littéraire par rapport aux champs établis et émergents. Sont présentées, par le biais de penseurs camerounais, la mise en place et la continuité de la canonicité littéraire française dès le XVIIème siècle, ainsi que l'autonomie d’un champ d’écritures.

Selon certaines théories postcoloniales, la littérature canonique a semblé contribuer au maintien et à la transmission de valeurs d‘une classe dite dominante au détriment d‘autres valeurs présentes. Ces théories démontrent les processus d‘exclusion d‘écritures divergentes et différentes – notamment celles des anciennes colonies – engendrés par les termes de la canonicité littéraire occidentale. Mais c’est bien en développant un discours canonique propre que les écritures des pays émergents seront à même d’établir leurs instances de reconnaissance.

La thèse propose finalement le principe de canonicité comme instrument légitime et indispensable pour affirmer l‘autorité d‘un champ, ses caractéristiques et ses transformations.

Sujets

• Colonisation
• Political Science

Informations

• Publié par: Edilivre
• Date de parution: 02 février 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9782332846662
• Langue: Français

Extrait

Couverture
Copyright













Cet ouvrage a été composé par Edilivre
175, boulevard Anatole France – 93200 Saint-Denis
Tél. : [phone] – Fax : [phone]
Mail : [e-mail]
www.edilivre.com

Tous droits de reproduction, d’adaptation et de traduction,
intégrale ou partielle réservés pour tous pays.

ISBN numérique : 978-2-332-84664-8

© Edilivre, 2014
Declaration by author
This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, a nd any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the General Award Rules of The University of Queensland, immediately made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 .
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material.
Statement of Contributions to Jointly Authored Works Contained in the Thesis
No jointly-authored works
Statement of Contributions by Others to the Thesis as a Whole
No contributions by others
Statement of Parts of the Thesis Submitted to Qualify for the Award of Another Degree
None
Published Works by the Author Incorporated into the Thesis
None
Additional Published Works by the Author Relevant to the Thesis but not Forming Part of it
None
Abstract – (English Version)
My thesis discusses the principles of Western literary canonicity in relation to both established and emerging literary fields.
My objective is to evaluate the pertinence of criticism of literary canonicity for non-established postcolonial writing spheres and their social contexts.
I have chosen literary spheres as they represent a privileged space in which social debates can take place. These spheres occupy a position that is subject to controversy as they may be instrumental in justifying a certain social order or challenging it, maintaining cohesion or fostering division. Questioning canonicity can therefore never simply be about changing certain literary criteria: it is always implicated in wider social discourses to which it may give legitimacy. Modifying the literary framework has repercussions on the definition, the validity and authority of the social order. For example, challenging the merit of canonicity necessarily brings to attention the terms of institutionalized legitimacy. It can potentially undermine, confirm or disqualify the social order attached to it. I therefore look not only at literary criticism but at its relations and involvement in various institutions, notably educational ones. I do this by also evaluating the necessary discursive conditions which allow a given “object” to be called “knowledge”: “How is the field of knowledge determined, challenged, and transmitted? How is this decided? How is this effected?” I describe the development and objectives of literary canonicity within its seventeenth and eighteenth century historical context and the institutional mechanisms which established and maintained it through a number of centuries. From this I posit the undeniable “progress” – or transformations – which have arisen as the consequence of a specific way of organising and narrating the field of knowledge.
After having looked at the terms and applications of literary canonicity, I then look at ways in which this has been critiqued. While these transformations may have been seen as “liberating” people from alleged obscurantism and an unfit society, critics came to see, throughout the twentieth century, the institutionalisation of knowledge – including that of literature – as preventing social justice insofar as it followed stultifying precepts favourable to the specific interests of a social elite. These critics, recently mostly postcolonial theories, have turned to the example of the literary production of ex-colonial countries to further support their argument. Western canonicity, they say, does indeed endure by excluding, and therefore silencing, other voices. It legitimates their exclusion by, amongst other factors, setting the criteria for inclusion in such a way that they are unattainable, not pertinent to a wide range of texts, or otherwise refusing to amend them in keeping with social changes and expectations. Nevertheless it is difficult to argue that aiming at selecting an “object” would not also inevitably be excluding another. It follows that a field cannot exist without principles of exclusion, however unfair and not well-founded the terms of exclusion may appear. I have referred to dissenting voices which were, well before postcolonial theories, challenging some of the criteria delimiting the Western literary field and its “great works”. Yet the problem of ex-colonies or emerging independent nations, is, I contend, a different problematic altogether. A number of ex-colonies do not have an existing dominant national literary sphere to challenge: they must first establish one. They want to bring about cultural independence. In that context literary canonicity can be seen as one of the steps allowing legitimacy by demonstrating its limits. The “excluded” here themselves establish the terms of references, and of exclusion. To posit themselves as an independent field, in any case, would invalidate “exclusion” from the West. They might – or might not – be considered as interlocutors by the West: however – and this is crucial – reciprocally so. In other words, they could exclude the West too. This would highlight a function of canonicity overlooked by its Western critics: that of providing a crucial element that makes it possible for a field to be recognised. Where canonical texts are subsequently used to justify a given unfair social order, the criticism must be addressed to the interpretation and application, to a specific discourse, not to the texts themselves.
I have sought to challenge some of the terms of canon criticism, namely canonicity as mainly a stultifying imperialistic force. I do not deny that texts may be used in such fashion. This however only reinforces my point. I underline the distinction that needs to be made between the text, its interpretation and a wider discourse with ulterior motives which may guide, even divert the text’s meaning(s) to its own purpose. I have attempted to refer to one of the perhaps overlooked primary functions of literary canonicity: it is a process which is indispensable to the legitimate construction of a field and to the assertion of its authority. The challenge then would be for an “independent” literary canonicity to remain attuned to social changes, including that of different concepts of justice. This has not always been the case in the West.
Version française
Cette thèse est une réflexion sur la critique des principes de canonicité littéraire, que ce soit par rapport aux champs établis ou émergents. Nous nous efforcerons d’évaluer sous quelles conditions une critique littéraire ayant cours dans un espace déjà bien affirmé pourrait s’adresser avec profit à des écritures dont le contexte social et institutionnel présente des exigences spécifiques.
Nous avons choisi l’espace littéraire en ce qu’il correspond à un espace discursif privilégié dans une société donnée, tout à la fois par les textes mêmes que par les critères institutionnels d’interprétation, de classification qui leur sont appliqués. En effet, le texte, et sa critique, peuvent être tout autant un modèle de style, une réflexion virulente ou modérée sur un sujet donné, une manipulation politique ou un instrument d’émancipation idéologique. Nous y trouvons l’élaboration de discours légitimant ou discréditant tel ou tel agencement social. L’écriture dépasse donc toujours son propre cadre : elle émane du discours social et y retourne en l’affirmant, le contestant ou le rejetant tout à fait. Questionner les principes en place de canonicité, c’est peut-être mettre en doute les termes mêmes du discours de la légitimité institutionnelle et du bien-fondé de l’ordre social. En conséquence, nous nous arrêterons aux institutions dont l’une des fonctions principales est la transmission d’un discours social stable, mais rarement dénué d’objectifs politiques. Nous soulignerons le lien entre les classifications de l’espace du savoir et celui de l’ordre et de la hiérarchie sociale. Nous poserons notamment les questions suivantes : comment la définition même du savoir est-elle produite ? Comment cela est-il mis en pratique ? Pour ce faire nous rappellerons la mise en place de la canonicité littéraire, française, dans le contexte des XVII e et XVIII e siècles et sa continuité institutionnelle à travers plusieurs siècles. Nous en soulignerons les conséquences indéniables – de progrès ou de transformations – par rapport à l’organisation du savoir selon un nouveau discours. Après avoir présenté les termes de la canonicité littéraire, nous en présenterons les remises en question.
Les bouleversements sociaux y compris l’éducation généralisée – et la diffusion de la littérature canonique – ont pu avoir un aspect émancipatoire quant aux modes de pensée présum