Deep Focus

Toward the Thin Description of Literary Culture
  • Douglas Bruster
Part of the Early Modern Cultural Series book series


Descriptions of culture as a totality occur infrequently today In fact, changes to the form in which cultural research is presented hint at our diminished confidence in seeing culture “whole,” or even extensively; we now tend to analyze culture not in book-length studies but in essays.1 And such essays typically employ a critical genre of relatively recent origin: “thick description.” Thick description can be said to have changed the way literary critics read and write. At the very least, thick description remains the form in which important changes to critical analysis and the presentation of research have been registered. Its popularity in Shakespeare studies surely comes from the special influence of new historicism on the field. In the preceding chapter I remarked that new historicism has been the dominant methodology in early modern studies for several decades. While some observers would see new historicism as a kind of ghost, a “moment in critical history that… is seen to be passing,” even a “form of cultural and literary criticism that no one practices today except the founders,” I believe that such characterizations overstate the case.2 New historicism can be seen as a thing of the past precisely because so many of its assumptions and practive have become standard and hence less visible to us.


Literary Text Cultural Analysis Literary Culture Thick Description Cultural 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.
    In describing a transition from book-length to essayistic treatments of early modern culture, I am thinking of such earlier studies as, for example, Louis B. Wright’s Middle-Class Culture in Elizabethan England (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1935);Google Scholar
  2. E. M. W. Tillyard’s The Elizabethan World Picture (London: Chatto & Windus 1943);Google Scholar
  3. H. S. Bennett’s trilogy, English Books and Readers 1475 to 1557 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), English Books and Readers 1558 to 1603 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), and English Books and Readers 1603 to 1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970);Google Scholar
  4. and John Buxton’s Elizabethan Taste (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1963).Google Scholar
  5. One might take a harbinger statement of the essay’s growing role in cultural studies from Clifford Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973): “the essay, whether of thirty pages or three hundred, has seemed the natural genre in which to present cultural interpretations and the theories sustaining them” (25). One can of course see the rise of the cultural-studies essay in the field of early modern studies in Louis Montrose’s influential body of work. See, in addition to his “Shaping Fantasies” essay, Montrose, “Celebration and Insinuation: Sir Philip Sidney and the Motives of Elizabethan Courtship,” Renaissance Drama 8 (1977): 3–35; “The Purpose of Playing: Reflections on a Shakespearean Anthropology,” Helios 7.2 (1980): 53–74; and “Gifts and Reasons: The Contexts of Peek’s Araygnement of Paris” ELH 47 (1980): 433–61. In early modern studies, the journal Representations (first issued in 1983) and the influential anthology Representing the English Renaissance (1988) that derived from essays published in that journal jointly functioned to establish a kind of watershed between the book and essay forms of cultural inquiry in the field.Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    In a review of Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture (1996), Elizabeth Harvey relates that “That there are no new, young, or alternate voices represented here is slightly disturbing, for it has the effect either of representing new historicism (and cultural materialism) as hegemonic, as a closed circle of insiders, or as serving as a kind of retrospective for a moment in critical history that, in its very memorializing gesture, is seen to be passing.” Harvey, in Journal of English and Germanic Philology 100.1 (2001): 133–36; 134. A short, anonymous review of Gallagher and Greenblatt’s Practicing New Historicism (2000) is more blunt still about the apparent datedness of new historicism: “The problem with this book is that it speaks to and of a form of cultural and literary criticism that no one practices today except the founders, Gallagher and Greenblatt. This book strikes one as a vanity publication, full of self-referentiality and marked with a refusal to engage the serious criticisms that have been lodged against new historicism over the last fifteen years. This book is best described as a swan song. It is very unlikely to have any impact on literary or cultural studies, which seem to have moved beyond the kind of criticism espoused here.” Virginia Quarterly 77.1 (2001): S12.Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Edward Pechter, review of Judy Kronenfeld, King Lear and the Naked Truth: Rethinking the Language of Religion and Resistance, in Journal of English and Germanic Philology 99.1 (2000): 132–35; 134.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    Jane Donawerth, “Teaching Shakespeare in the Context of Renaissance Women’s Culture,” Shakespeare Quarterly 47.4 (1996): 476–89; 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 5.
    Meredith Anne Skura, Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 40.2 (2000): 355–86; 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 9–10, emphasis added.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    On the tension between intuition and rigor in thick description, see Thomas J. Scheff, “Toward Resolving the Controversy over ‘Thick Description,’” Current Anthropology 27.4 (1986): 408–9; Scheff writes to defend Geertz’s practice on the basis of “counterfactual variants” (409).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 15.
    Kenneth A. Rice, Geertz and Culture (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Paul A. Roth, “Ethnography Without Tears,” Current Anthropology 30.5 (1989): 555–61; 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 17.
    Alan Tongs, “Interpretive Anthropology and Thick Description: Geertz and the Critics,” The Eastern Anthropologist 50.3–4 (1997): 215–32; 215.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    S. P. Reyna, “Literary Anthropology and the Case Against Science,” Mann.s. 29.3 (1994): 555–81; 576.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    Paul Shankman, “The Thick and the Thin: On the Interpretive Theoretical Paradigm of Clifford Geertz,” Current Anthropology 25.3 (1984): 261–79; 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 20.
    William Roseberry, “Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology,” Social Research 49 (1982): 1013–28.Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    For criticisms of new historicist practice within the field of early modern studies, see Jean E. Howard, “The New Historicism in Renaissance Studies,” English Literary Renaissance 16.1 (1986): 13–43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynda E. Boose “The Family in Shakespeare Studies; or—Studies in the Family of Shakespeareans; or—The Politics of Politics,” Renaissance Quarterly 40.4 (1987): 707–42;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edward Pechter, “The New Historicism and Its Discontents: Politicizing Renaissance Drama,” PMLA 102.3 (1987): 292–303;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Albert H. Tricomi, Reading Tudor-Stuart Texts Through Cultural Historicism (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1996);Google Scholar
  22. and Bruster , Quoting Shakespeare: Form and Culture in Early Modern Drama (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), esp. 27–36.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 5; emphasis in original.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stephen Greenblatt, “Shakespeare and the Exorcists,” in Shakespeare and the Question of Theory, ed. Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman (New York: Methuen, 1985), 163–87; and “Fiction and Friction,” in Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought, ed. Thomas C. Heller et al. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982), 30–52.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Steven Mullaney, “Strange Things, Gross Terms, Curious Customs: The Rehearsal of Cultures in the Late Renaissance,” in Representing the English Renaissance, ed. Stephen Greenblatt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 65–92; 65.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Lena Cowen Orlin, “Women on the Threshold,” Shakespeare Studies 25 (1997): 50–58; 50.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Bruce Boehrer, “Shylock and the Rise of the Household Pet: Thinking Social Exclusion in The Merchant of Venice”, Shakespeare Quarterly 50.2 (1999): 152–70; 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 29.
    For an insightful critique of new historicism that parodies such beginnings, see Frank Grady, “Gower’s Boat, Richard’s Barge, and the True Story of the Confessio Amantis: Text and Gloss,” Texas Studies in Language and Literature 44.1 (2002): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 31.
    Stephen J. Greenblatt, Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture (New York: Routledge, 1990), 161–83.Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    Wendy Wall, “Why Does Puck Sweep?: Fairylore, Merry Wives, and Social Struggle,” Shakespeare Quarterly 52.1 (2001): 67–106. Recently Wall has published a version of this essay in her Staging Domesticity: Household Work and English Identity in Early Modern Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 36.
    Henry S. Turner, “Nashe’s Red Herring: Epistemologies of the Commodity in Lenten Stuffe (1599),” ELH 68.3 (2001): 529–61; 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 38.
    See, for example, Joel Fineman, “The History of the Anecdote: Fiction and Fiction,” in The New Historicism, ed. H. Aram Veeser (New York: Routledge, 1989), 49–76.Google Scholar
  33. 39.
    See Carolyn Porter, “Are We Being Historical Yet?” South Atlantic Quarterly 87 (1988): 743–86, quotation at 779. Porter points out that “the use of cultural anecdotes is one of the techniques most often remarked upon by the more skeptical members of new histori-cism’s audience” (778, and see her bibliography 785 n. 51).Google Scholar
  34. 41.
    On the “allure” of the object in thick description, see Jonathan Gil Harris, “The New New Historicism’s Wunderkammer of Objects,” European Journal of English Studies 4.2 (2000): 111–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 45.
    Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmakinß (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1978), 135–36.Google Scholar
  36. 46.
    Raymond Williams, “The Analysis of Culture,” reprinted in Culture, Ideology and Social Process: A Reader, ed. Tony Bennett et al. (London: Batsford, 1981), 43–52; 47.Google Scholar
  37. 47.
    Madeleine Doran, Endeavors of Art (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964), 4.Google Scholar
  38. 48.
    As Matthew Greenfield observes: “Although some anthropologists have developed powerful accounts of migrancy and hybridity in the postcolonial world, the conceptual apparatus of anthropology still carries with it a family of metaphors that imagine communities as homogeneous entities with clearly demarcated boundaries. Literary critics, on the other hand, now follow Ernst Gellner, Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, and Liah Greenfeld in seeing the borders drawn around communities as ideological fictions.” Greenfield , “What We Talk About When We Talk About Culture,” Raritan 19.2 (1999): 95–113; 105. For a philosophical meditation on the role of variety in cultural analysis,Google Scholar
  39. see Louis Dupré, “Cultural Variety in Metaphysical Unity,” in The Practice of Cultural Analysis, ed. Mieke Bal (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 255–67. One could take, as an instance of variety’s growing role in cultural analysis concerned with the early modern period, the preference of textual critics for multiple and varying texts, including, famously, three Hamlets and two hears. Google Scholar
  40. A brief for such textual variety can be found in Leah Marcus, Unedit-ing the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton (London and New York: Routledge, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 51.
    Anne Barton, “Perils of Historicism,” The New Tork Review of Books 38.6 (March 28, 1991): 53–55; at 53.Google Scholar
  42. 54.
    On the history of the Mummers’ play, see E. K. Chambers, The English Folk-Play (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933);Google Scholar
  43. and Alex Helm, The English Mummers’ Play (Woodbridge, Suffolk: D. S. Brewer, 1980).Google Scholar
  44. 55.
    In R. J. E. Tiddy, The Mummers’ Play (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), 162.Google Scholar
  45. 56.
    Cited in Alan Brody, The English Mummers and Their Plays: Traces of Ancient Mystery (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970), 60.Google Scholar
  46. 58.
    Vivien Brodsky Elliott notes that apprenticeship records for fifteen London companies—records containing over 8,000 entries—do not record a female apprentice between 1580 and 1640. Elliott , “Single Women in the London Marriage Market: Age, Status, and Mobility, 1598–1619,” in Marriage and Society: Studies in the Social History of Marriage, ed. R. B. Outhwaite (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981), 81–100; 91.1 am indebted, for much of my knowledge of this topic, to a presentation by Natasha E. Korda entitled “Single Women and the Properties of Poverty in Measure for Measure” at the New Orleans meeting of the Modern Language Association, December 28, 2001.Google Scholar
  47. 61.
    Tillyard’s book reminds us that, just as not every book that invokes “culture” strives to address culture, some books that do not invoke the term aspire to comment on it. With all its faults, The Elizabethan World Picture seems an instance of the latter. A useful corrective to Tillyard’s univocal model of Elizabethan ideology can be found in Deborah Kuller Shuger, Habits of Thought in the English Renaissance: Religion, Politics, and the Dominant Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990; rpt. 1998).Google Scholar
  48. 63.
    On “deep focus,” see David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristen Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), 341–52; and Patrick L. Ogle, “Technological and Aesthetic Influences Upon the Development of Deep-Focus Cinematography in the United States,” Screen Reader 1 (London: Society for Education in Film and Television, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 64.
    See my argument about the industrial role of the early modern playhouses in Bruster , Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), and in “Entertainment: The Birth of an Industry,” in the early modern volume of The Cambridge History of English Drama, ed. Peter Thompson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 65.
    See Paul Yachnin, Stage-Wrights: Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton, and the Making of Theatrical Value (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997),CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. and, more recently, Anthony B. Dawson and Paul Yachnin, The Culture of Playgoing in Shakespeare’s England: A Collaborative Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Douglas Bruster 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas Bruster

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations