2 Categories for a Materialist Criticism * Every works the work of many things Besides en euthor és (Valésy) ‘The work of Raymond Williams, awed as it has been by ‘humanism’ and idealism, represents one of the most significant “sources from which a materialist aesthetics might be derived, Refusing, that pervasive form of critical idealism which would repress the whole material infrastructure of artiste. production, Williams has properly insisted on the realty of art as ‘material ‘practice’. Yet itis not only that his conception of art as “practice” "etains strong residual elements of humanism; i is alo tha, to date. at least the construe sructures of that practice have received litle systematic analysis in his work. It is necessary, then, to develop a method whereby those structures can be rigorously specified, and oo their precise articulations examined. (S+,_,3) 1848 posible to set out ip schematic form the major constituents of Soa Marztecheory of lteratave. They can as follows: (General Mode of Production (GMP) (i) Literary Mode of Production (LMP) (Gi) General Ideology (GI) (Gv) Authorial Ideology (Aut) (*). Aesthetic Ideology (AI) (vi) Text ‘The text, strictly speaking, is hardly a constituent of literary theory: ics, rather, its objec. But in so far as it must be examined in Ns relations with the other elements set ou, i ean be regarded method. logically as a particular ‘level’. The task of eritcem isto analyse Crit amaligst Wren anhiuhabions of hat. shncloe fale predic tee © General Mode of Production (GMP) ‘A mode of production may be characterised as a unity of certain forces and social relations of material mation is characterised by a ton oF such imodes of produce tion, one of which will normally be dominant. By “General Mode of Production jant_mode; I use the term ‘essa not becuse economic production i ever anything caer an historically specific, but to distinguish economic production from: (8 Literary Mode of Production (LMP) Aoi? al A unity of certain forces and social relations of literary production: ina ial formation. Tan ety there will ‘normally exist a number of distinct of I luction, one of, will normally be dominant. will be ut zelations of conflict and ly previous social Yortnation may survive within and inter- Penetrate later modes: the copresence ofthe ‘patronage’ system and tai literary production in cighteenth-century England, the persistence of ‘artisanal” literary production within the capitalist LMP. A classical instance of such survivals is typically to be found in the ‘mutation To 'written’ LMPs, where the6 medieval England, fr Sample reading” contin menace “"— jpvariably, rang aloud in public-and much of he "wntnes’ LAP * onsity in committing to manuscript form product of The “oal’ sok, Contre, the emergence of "writen: TDD peso certain more complet sad esse ol profs deveerh er LMP as it is ii developed by it. With the development of a ‘writen’ LMP in sith-century Ireland, the druidic “oral” mode, nurtured by the powerful intellectual caste of the fil, continues its ‘own separate existence independent of (although not uninfivenced bby) writen literary production. The Irish ‘oral’ LMP is thus for some considerable time peculiarly unsubordinated to the writen ‘mode, even though in passing into that mode it undergoes certain ‘mutations es a literary product, modified in such predominanty orl ‘wats a5 alliteration and repetition. The significant moment ia the ‘mutual articulation of two such distinct LMPs occurs when the acts cof composition and writing become more or less simultancous ~ when the ‘written’ LMP assumes a certain autonomy ofthe ‘eval” rather than consigning its products to manuscript. This unity of writing and composition is exemplified by a number of early Irish texts which recreate the ora! tradition - a genre closely associated With, the serbel activities of the early monastic schools, who 28 (imate produc yathesing nave and Latin teary elements (and s0 producing new literary forrs) emerge in seventvcentiry Inland aa dine LP ncn wis he laminae ME "oo profesional, legally privileged, ideologically hegemonic fl, se? epee pty ee Day ch in iho 4 te eo prin on to literature is an ideologically significant appropriation. = Categories for a Materialist Criticism 47 clements_or structures of other” past, contemporary or o Th de magni for rape cacy combines structures of the dominant capitalist ith elements of collaborative production, ‘informal’ distribution mechanisms and product (‘manuscript Foi or Arsmey prom coo in te septate, Se ye in certain ‘relations mn os elabents 4 ice png and poblting oreniton)ociamansele of. production si qrnin deeminaz peduaie ists ‘ments. These forces of Ii juction determine and are over ,(>‘t deeeioed by Be a ‘exchange and consumption, The handwiten manuscript can only tnd conmomcd on hand hund byw ety curly caste; the multiply dictated work (one copied simultaneously by several serbes) is able to achieve wider sbcial consumption; the ballads pedalled by a chapman may be consumed by an even wider audience; the ‘yellowback” raifway novel is available to a mast bli. P Uailed with thee produce relations of liter doo, {The a produce ‘medieval poet presenting to his patron a personally requested ip cmc ep ‘minstrel housed and fed by his peasant audience the eclesanically or royally patronised pro- ddacer, or the aithor who sells his product to an atttcratic patron for 2 dedication fee; the ‘independent’ author who sells his com- rmodity to bookseller-publsher or to a capitalist publishing fms the sate-patronised produce: all of these forms are familiar enough tribal bard then, are specific social 5” iy ‘ing or chieftain; the ‘amateur wel | toner heer Sosyee ap for co Ron Spee to the ‘sociology of literature’. The point is to analyse the complex asticulations of these various LMPs with the ‘general’ mode of ‘a socal formation. (Ly Before considering that question, however, it is important to note the the chance of an LMP is significant consent of the Werasy product ilé. We are not merely eoncerned here with t sociological outworks ofthe text; we are concerned rather with how the text comes to be what it is because of the specific determinations ‘mode af production. TE LMPs are. extrinsic fare =a i fe ejualy inital to He the leary txt p and i EMP is typically more scaly eyed, ancaymots, shorn of iinynerace ingorpecivenes than the Pro dduct of a private printing press; the eclesiastically patronised work is characteriically more devout and didactic than the fiction pro- duced for the markets of monopely capitalism. The work which survives solely by word of mouth from region to region is con- strained to deploy conventions of ‘impersonality’ inimical to the confessional forms of a producer whose relatively “privatised” LMP is under severe pressure from more publie modes which threaten to dislodge it. A poct whose profesional function is to recount heroic, mythological tales of military vietory before kings and noblemen preparing for war will perpetuate genres superfuots to an author whose EMP constrains im to woo a Whig aisoerat dedicated to oe thes however Say ee pcalls ance int; it is eae te deed ee stituent rather tian merely an extrinsic limit of the character of the 4 i} Categories for a MatrislctCrisciemt 49 (i) Relations of LMP and GMP unr ane ‘The forees of production of the LMP are naturally provided by the GMP itself, of which the LMP is a particular substruccare{In the ‘case of literary production, te materials and instruments empl ‘ormally perform a common function within the GMP itself. This is Jes true of certain other modes of artistic production, many of ‘whose mateias and instruments, though of course produced by the GMP, perform no significant function within it. (Trombones and. srestepaint play no world historical part within general production.) ‘Be masons btmeen LMP nd GM, bowere are alee, in ue ors F Ln erie [Shirly arable The leo preprating Pr win general.) prodicton i hitrically wegen sock stuatoes the LMP ‘operates with a high degree of autonomy of the GMP from the view“ point ofits contribution to the development ofthe productive forces. °° ‘With the growth of printing, however, extensive speculative book production and marketing finally inegrate the dominant LMP into tbe GMP ava specific Branch of gener eaamedity production, (Chis integration, im which literature becomes merely snotheragpect of commodity production, is typically coupled with significant ttatong within he ax regen of eo, and & = tion of that region within the dominant ideological formation.) In dene! elie ech Seman Gens te x cdibaret Ps CM ha of Be TMP fecton a scone ep | duction and expansion of GMP. — Tie LMP repent 9 i dv of Ibo derma’ by i aracer and rage of development Teckel nol nee te Ch? doco Only with rein A> stage of development of the GMP is the relatively autonomous °\ “existence of an LMP possible. Li i race aces els Es capitalist mode of production. Bese oad pee ee see5 is within reach of. saiebeie te distribution, and per- li \< of literacy, Teasure, shettey—asid satin ir inccigy specie and eed P ‘modes of literary smodities on this market, and conditions etsential for professional [iterary Su Zolonged and intensive abour, iliteracy eet halen privacy and lighting (Charles Di tion and distribution to wll literary com ‘produces the materia) and cultoral ion within it. In. ih phenomena poverty, physical and mental debility coneqieat” ‘or partial Iieracy, eke described the window as."a.tax upon knowledge’), the GMP bears Uj the LME to.cxcude or part clases from literary production as weshall see, is ‘The social relations ofthe LMP are in socal relations of the GMP. (The literary ‘al relation to his eonsamess which ic mediated by his seca relations 0 the patrons, ‘These social relacions are the ode cain scl gre 08 pattally exclude cote 8 goons ——— ecermined by the | Jucer stands in a certain oo! blshers and distributors of his produc). ° chemseves materially "tal i thes Character of the product ite. The fil of early Irland may agains c™ it eonventent example, Before the emergence of a ‘written’ EMP, the fil caste formed the dominant group of a mélange of entertainers, musicians, lampooness sed as ‘bards’, controlling the i traditions and composers of he . ‘wee socal functionaries occupying a legally enshrined, privileged ‘gatus within the socal formation, exercising extensive ideological {influence over it, and handsomely remunerated by theis patrons. ‘These socal relations embodied themselves in the character of their Airecary the Gaelic despised for is ‘pagan’ ‘oriented clergy; the poetic geares they hero, ‘products: as a secular, traditionalist and hers (generically rovide lites catego ideological apparatuses of fearing and literature as advises 10 kings, preservers of oral literary, ero, panegytie and elegiae verse. The} caste the fil preserved cements by the higher, Latin~ ‘worked were the ‘privileged’ eect iel ted mjhological tds ofthe Ineratare ofthe Gaclie aristocracy. In this case, then, a ‘between the social relat fits Jes Nancon wikin te socal resins of By contra, the individual els-poston of cents hee TMs maybe in contradiction ‘FLMP and GMP isto be observed: the dvely coterminous ener sabole. Sf ali iucer in "with his miode of inser- Categories for a Materialist Criticism 5% tion into the clasestructure ar an author. A producer who is himeclé spamber the dominant ssl a my, x zonal in Elizabethan England, be selected for literary patronage in preference to one ftom 2 sabrina soil cls; yt the areca pet oF ‘haucbourgeeis novelist becomes, within the capitalise LMP, a petty- bourgeois producer. (This, indeed, is a coptradiction which may enter into ‘aesthetic ideology” ive 26 in the case of bourgeois Romantica) The socal relations of the LMP, then, while in formations, LMP of ‘capitalise printing, Feblahng and ditibutng reproduc the dominant GMP, bet Incorporates asa eral constituent a subordinete mode of produc- tion: the artisanal mode of the literary producer himself, who typically sll is product (rnanuscript) rather than bis Ibour-power |“ tothe publisher in exchange fora fee] P ‘The social cases into which the productive agents of a socal formation are distibuted may also exert 2 determination on the character of the LMPs. Coexstent LMPs may be mutually jun” ~" fecause cach seands im distinct and particular relation ta specie» social clas. Thus, a dominant courtly class may operate an LMP constituted by the ‘amateur’ production of texts for ‘informal’, ‘coterie? disuibution and consumption; an LMP based upon the pfesioal pede andthe aplaie me of prodactn ution, exchange and consumption into which such ‘amateus" texts ‘may enter) may simultancously exist to supply Utecary commodities to A wider, aristocratic and bourgeois readership, while a complex jnterdetermination which one would expect concretely «© exist between such classstructured LMPs. In medieval England, for ‘example, publicly-perormned vernacular Wteratore wes coneumed by all socal clases, and the tex produced by the ‘amateur’ author at the request of his patron might be gradually disteminated until a stationes would undertake simultancous duplication of the original, privately-owned manuscript for profit. Granted such interdetermina-¢ |. tions, however, the clase-determinations of literary consumption ate a significant constituent tions, for example, the distribution OF income and high pric Tn developed capitalist foreman 2tterary products determined by dhe GMP produce the vxal elation Tie rather than exchange between dhe man of prletstian Sd petybourgeois consumers and the LMP; the purchase of books isieanogly eof fo mene oe dona at Indeed ‘hagrowth of die dreulating ibrar in nineeenthceotiry England r i SR Taco ¢ msier mutton in i i Fe ation of the structures of production, distribution ofsumption. The privileged ‘of the ‘three-decker’ (three alum) navel wibin the aesthetic ideology of Viewrfan England is 3 function ofthe economic power within the LMP ofthe circulating Tiberi, for whom such coramodivies were especially profitable since three subscribers could thus read a novel simultaneously. The libraries and publishers cartelied to keep the market price of such commodities prohibitively high, hence establishing the libraries as ‘etively the sol structre of literary distribution and consumption, ‘The dominant socal relation of consurcption in the dominant LMP ‘of Vietorian England was the chee guineas subscription of a con- fumer to Mudi's circulating library of New Oxford Street. The Tibraies, moreover, recontitated the srocteres of literary produc tion: they were powerful determinants in the selection of producers (fan author failed to get into Mudie's advertising list, he or she was effectively finished), of the pace of Uierary production (an author Wwould need to produce one threedecker a year to scrape a modest living), and of the literary product itself, The multiple complicated plots elaborate digrssons and gratuitous interludes of such works {here the effect of producers ingeniously elongating theie material to meet the requirements of the form. Parallel modifications were produced in the printing proces Sel where margins were widened {nd type enlarged to achieve the prerequisite bull, Coupled si (( Seaatng Tas, Bess we "a work a ) complex conjunenire of GMP, LMP, ‘general’ and ‘aesthetic’ Sdeology, and text, The struggle of a producer Jike Thomas Hardy (.- Sguint clement of Vitran burps ideology is intimately related -t his scathing assaults on this particular LMP. ‘The extent to which the social relations of literary production Categories for a Mateislit Criticiem 53 reproduce the social relations of “general” then, is Shay vari aid dererminane inthe case of the bal bardie ype he oo ve of clans ane Kena: the ey vocal Gina between chit or king, bard end Livznare are themacives iy re i el ee ow al ee tr jae eae typically a cleric, part of an ideslogical ‘But his literary. ‘rettacton isan alpetof this funclon rather shan intial with it, « 4 elon and Vamatur’ mode of xerckng hit pith lit relations asgume a certain relative ‘general’ ones!|(The same is true of the patronised medieval producer, whose literary relations to bis patron and consumers is a specific articulation of the "general® social relations whieh held ‘hem. Capitalise formations differ from all of these specificity of the articulation between ‘general’ and literary soeial relations in capitalist formations is to be found in the fact that although the literary social relations in general reproduce the social relations of the GMP, they piper eaten ane enper eon sn nn ey oot bale and ror: formations, te dl wlsoos ta which ch age of ee pose (nnn, thers nae etc.) stand are in ‘of effectively identical with the social relations in which these individual stand outside the LMP, in relation to the GMP. The individual functions within ‘general’ social relations fulfilled by the LMP ageats in capitalism, however, are autonomous of the functions they fulfil within the social relations ies pees fa coe ee be ed by" tic "cancelled" x. iterary com this unique of the capitalist LAMP ‘which difeceatiates it markedly from other [LMPs whose social relations depend upon certain ‘general’ relations between the parclar agents = rations which preexist the act of literary production. ‘The capitalise LMP produces its own social relations between the pastcalar agents independently of heir pre- stent socal fonctions — socal Telatons which in general Soe te general soda elaSSny appropriate gence mam ‘prodaevon.——a BH diehard Seis Vote wish tendons > apraransr G0) General Ideology (GY! pb oss) Grea Need cee derureand trust wince Y As wall as giving cise at a certain historical stage to series of LMPs, always produces a dominant ideological formation = a formation I provisionally tem “general” to distinguish it from that ion wishineit known as the aeithetic regi 3 deo “tides! type’ of "ideology in general’, but that particular dominated semble of ideologies tbe found in any soll formation fa pea of the ‘relations vor cance bmn, Gland as sudioaT ealoga, en, She apelkng ne of certain extinsically elated ‘set bt of the inode of insertion of athoral and aestsic, : lela Tae de pin postion of Gly A and Aul which might fallow com designating them thus forthe purpots of analysis. (¥) Relations of Gland LMP * GI eypiclly contains cerain general elements or structures, all or | some of which may at a particular historical stage bar significantly onthe ehaacter ofthe LMP. These general srt ext be itn ») pista the main he agus the pole, and he ‘ata {A set of complex interdeterminations will normally hold Between \ them, which demand historical specification it y ,, Ali is related to GI not only by how it ps lang ,A innocent and 9 ao ded ibe sages ae terrain scarred, fissured and divided by the cataclysms of polit [A history, strewen_with the relics of imperialist, nationalist, regionalist and. class. combat-{The linguistic le always at base the politico tins, “piahicod Lens, GH? > duncan” iasagiel foracbinn le reabaeny ees depntnnl lebionns) individned sation, class with clase are fought out. as effect of such struggles, a crucial mechanism by which language and ideology of an im of bashes Categories fora Materialin Criticism 55 tion-state ‘mony, oF by which & subordinated state, class or region or eroded at the politcal, Itis significance here ~ a moment in wi ‘mony of a ‘national’ class reflects itself in the cesental to its integrative, cetralising state a ‘of the genesis of English a a ‘national’ | imperialism and its aftermath - the linguis ‘Norman French and Engli lnguinic’ sphere within which the erage ofimperl exogeeror ‘id sbjowted se, notte Wi Salon eee Cstare an Sgeat a oll perialist clas extalishe its hege- French after the oss of Normandy, the mutations of Old Eny under Noonan’ Pench ates he pedal om these sources of a distinctive English language legally 1362, the selection of the old Political and ideological power-centres Cambridge) as the basis of the hegemonic language, Parallel actions between the LMP and the linguisic, ideological and political structures of state power can he found by turning once more instance of Ireland. Towards the end of the twelfth Ireland there arose a cultural apparatus based upon the custody of native learning the hegemonic class~an apparatus which subjugation of Ireland in the East Midland dialect (embracing the of London, Oxford. and inter- ‘to the hereditary and lteratore by eertin fais within is shattered by the English seventeenth century. Bereft of socal Hid ago ee a ge me, pec sreterisie of he human sn ‘ec ple sod elope ben ateia_producion levels oa fol Loma daa et hf ol aia dan Te pe eee es ee sag, id atch prc linguistic coherence spparatses. The history °° language isthe history of °° ic clase-division between ish, the development of Anglo-Norman reserves ideological level an historical identity shattered “°° also a zone in which such struggles ihe ory pala Ta6 swith resultant changes in aesthetic form and developments in dialectal and provincial literary production, The tredtional LMP based on tales of the Fienns recounted by peripatetic or home-based ‘bards is also effectively destroyed by Englith imperialism: few such tales pass over into the alien language oft impede clas. 1 interdeterminatio linguist their effec on the eonstitution of an L¥IF products, are th No more graphic example of this conjunctu . history cam be found than i John Milton's decison to write Paradive Lort in his native tongue. Milton's decision was a radically political fact ~ an attertion of bourgeois Protestant nationalism over classical ‘and aristweratic culture, or rather an assertive appropriation of those classical modes for historically progresive ends, The very forms and longs tertures of bs poem area product ofthis inguin, poli Y pretigious conjuncture within ideology. All Sieray “fat elon nth lol ame —- 2 Bn joor Among these anne io and lec journal and eviews In devlopel ec oe mations, the literary sul re of the cultural apparatus interacts ‘more or less intensively with the ideological epparatus of ‘communi- + \easons’; but its real power lies in its articulation with the educational > apparatus. It is within this apparates that the ideological funetion of Titerature ~ its function, that in reproducing relations of the 1 = is most a From the Se ot proton most apparent. From the infant school to the University faculty, literature is a vital instrument 4 {te igerton of ndia no te poepial al syne yo. rf i eins ogi omaton be cmp a ee Categories for e Materialist Criticism 57 of thei arta pot lnerty tes bat cance of that whereby cernin hi {Gam thei soil fertony, dead a ary together to a "Titerary, bound and ranked te a serie of inerary 5 and interrogated to Yield a set of ideologically presupposed responses. The presse [idlogial Toston of is posse iy variable. It is”, ideological we of parca lerary works iti, more funda! mentally, a question of the ideological signif of the cultural x 04 tod acalenstonaltos of licrate es pek, What aay,» oon determined in general by the internal structures of the educational.» apparatus, which are themselves determined ia the Tast instance by the GMP; but it may present itself ideologically in the forma off." conservative academicism, related to GI in its literary potieism Se °°” (3)) in the form of[e liberal humanism which preserves a besieged ‘enclave of idealist Values supposedly incarnate in Literature from the invasions of a real history now moving beyond its liberal” ‘romanist phase] In any cate, it is important to emphasie that the i apart contin a ual wt of ie in ‘primary’ institutions of producon such as publishing Ihowses, which cust both st ements of the GMP and as prs ofthe Meolgial apparatie of “culture, and ‘ssondry”inton including the educational ones with which the cultural apparatus interacts, whose relation to the GMP is the more indirect one of contributing to its ion by aiding in the don ofits ee pn ee ‘A discussion of the specific relations beeween GI and the literary V tert belongs to the next chapter but sae the text ar al produce of the LMP, ie is worth ‘one or points about the fist point is that different LMPs may, in terms of the ideological character of their textual products, reproduce the same ideological! t- formation. There is no necessary homology between GI and a vealed and direcly published Victorian novel, despite belonging to alternative modes of production, may inhabit the same ideology. Conversely, the same LMP ma mutually entagonisi bourgeois values and relations ir in pare determined by the very“ incidental yo" I-EMP relation sit aflecs te literary tex'The! | o\ ae MP_may reproduce * pret Aig fiction of Defoe and Fielding. An LMP." Teton of the GMP may confer wit" Erne of fs dorninant Wenlogcal mosey; tie Romans dowcne Foes (fos donne’iE ‘ntfration of the LMP into general commodity production. Cen- ice with GMP social seations Jess reproduce i dominant "The second point concerns that direct bearing of GI on the literary text which is censorbip, Such modes of direct ideological control cover the text may g ere ‘oF consumption, of may be effected more icsng polly tect penageatd won. The mos. ee aad nly bof coon Ue ape i peculialy complex SMP, LMP, GI and aesthetic ideclogy. "The degre ‘and social distribution of literacy are determined in the lat instance by the GMP, bue literacy i dearly in turn a sgnificane determinant of he LMI, fing the fr and socal composion nt only of ‘The degree of literacy of producers an uence the character of te leary product = istributed orally, as well as its length and claborateness (for there isa limit tothe memorisng capacity of the non- or semiliterate produce), literacy may be effected by the + exclusion of etcain social groups and clases from the educational apparatus for political reasons; but these isa possibility of confit here berween those reasons and competing ideological imperative. In nineteenth-century England, Batieal reasons why the pol consumers nay also Jos" whether, for instance, it it for tee wee jlipe ciara Tela, Ta not Be. LIRTaCy is with GI) certain languages (French, Latin), or certain uses of imaguage w appopei © lice emote Oe das off general availablity. There is a pratical, as well as theoretical haters bigogiash (0) Authorit Ideology (As) ideology’ the effect of ee ere ae ae “authoral Tifton ‘ste 3 ined by 8 et factors: socal classe, nationality, his formation is never to rom Gl, bt ms be sie ins ariculation mde aimetanyhaee ne hee ees ee Rati dnrsbin tp dimen tele pdtlnnate Sete inton) Strfuinseenieninst Categories fora Materialist Criticism 59 with it Between the two formations of GI and Aul, relations of effective homology, partial disjunction and severe contradiction are iy = Tonjuncture or dsjuncture between Auf and | dont GI may also be ‘diachronically' determined: an author may relate O°) an the or her contemporary GT by varie of “belonging” to ance >) bistorclly previous Gl, or (G8 with the case of the reolutionary J. ~~" author) to a putatively fueure one* As GI mutates; an AuT which ‘was atone poi homologous with it may enter into eonlc with it, A mu me et relapse moa tn the historical period to which a writer belongs; nor dock a writer .\(\v"* necessarily Belong only t one "history". Te is significant i this ic: ee aly Eaindgel Soe maton at ‘Restoration England ~ Jobn Milton and John Bunyan ~ do not in fact ‘belong’ to ‘Restoration ideology’ at all, Wis vel = “Gl; nor is it wm be identified with! * ‘the text is not an in) t of an aesthetic (% \* Io6 (Categories for a Materialist Criticism 61 reproduction; the literary product a8 process, practice, medium, a symbol, object, epiphany, gesture; ie ,consumptic cog oS influence, arcane ritual, pantcipatory passive reception, pln Wk Nets didactic instruction, spiritual encounfer. Each of these ideolgic GT — At Ag tahun Fabs aed a sec ined by a specific conjuncture A, 00 he (0) AeaheticHelogy (at) MS Neos € aon basis of the ination of There f oi question of a necessarily symmeirial relation here between the various formations involved. Each of these formations is compl anda series of interSaly anual conical relation, SSR eee poe el ich sitet an ‘of histrealy dpa cmens may Gs wnbinn ce aac tunity disparate ideological elements of both GI and Al. A double. articulation GMP/GI ‘example, posible, where- ea 1 denote by this the specific aesthetic region of Gl, ditculated with other sich sponse hil e a, religous, = in rations of dominance a a etcamined ia the last instance by the ve Al sa itera comple fomat Ce a number i { ee saan tenes | cand value of the aesthetic eke il wihinsparealar eal ose mation, | of subsector, of which and = sory of the a 55 Rt ute an gy oe ace Sa but alto confi withthe bourses eoncepion of te nanes bj : ‘a mvclear individual. Or again, the Romantic and symbols ideology ofthe literary produc as mysteriously autotelic objec at once repre, dluces and represses its zeal stat as commodity. Similarly, the ‘ceolgy of insane’ or ‘disposable’ Iterar at reprodees the con A (Omid ny atu of sshichcs (Gi) Relations of Al, Gland LMP ony [\The rodiucer may be viewed prt.nity 2s the privileged servant of 3 socal order sya by Tis Toya s ecelesial or aristocratic patron, as the inspired articulator of the collective values of his community, as an “independent” producer fl fring hs pvt product fo an amenable sudiens othe ie or bohemian rebel dssdently marginal to ‘conventional’ ie eee ee seadethip and oon Liar production uel uy be elgg” ended revcdon, ns abr, op eee a play, reflection, fantasy, samy are actually what exists already ~ dicered, i Conversely, the concept of and ‘need for” a new form rosy develop relatively autonomously within aesthetic i i ‘modified or transformed to produce it. GI may occasionally impress ivelf directly upon the LMP to produce a particular form (sy, ‘socialist realism’) which is then encoded and elaborated by AI; but such unilateral seton & historically untypical. GI more usally genrer t L 8 5 bReaders eststoe thetnor prdicl” thal an a wlliple anbialaid Wractiat 18 Attrrcintdd HEL Lent” init yy We Hiner ab (Gx) Relations of GI, AI end Aut I [ + i atop nian tas oa cg ae Mulla, ical (caterer a Materia Cilt“8f’ 2 lens ae ofits contemporary Gl. It various aesthetic ements may be the |, er* predit ef diet esggal Ermatany may baang wage" ‘historic, wo that itis not identical i a ig ee Ne a rc eae \ A With the Rstoricalprogresiveness or obsolescence of the LMP },.10#* is produced. An ayhor may price progreve (2 lescent or parly obwo- fc" aerate, gialy ee le i rogressive fenry we Fielding). Ie is question in each eae of specifying the grease [| a=!" relations LMP, ‘ideology of LMP’, GI and AI. Athocial tay be an important determinant ofboth the | (5 type ideology within which an author)!" 4 Ki works. As with Alexander Pope's ‘choice’ of satire, elegy and the [IPT ee Imocicheroic, a certain AvI will exclude certain modes of literary ( ou". ros Pehcta and license otheri]( in levels of tion, Aul |W ‘may be so subordinated to Al that the questic wets Sar betnea f solace Cpe cena eer we Bal baal enn the caer me aga of a pecan nie relations beween Auf and Gl may be Condor ‘i on in terms of Al: within the text itself (Balzac is the dascal example), the production of GI by means f erate aesthetic forms may ‘cancel’ and contradict that production of GI ‘hich is authora ideclogy. The methodological signicance of Aul in the analysis ofthe text i therefore yatiabl: it may be elcively ‘homologous with GI/AI, or it may be ‘cancelled as «specie factor ‘minanis = an acti i mor ‘eology- Te is those relations which we must wow go on examine.