what is the literary canon essay

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics

Literary and Critical Theory

Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Canonicity

Introduction, general overview.

Canon and Genre
Canon and Gender
Canon and Race
Postcolonial Literature
World Literature
Comparative Literature

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Postcolonialism and Digital Humanities
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Canonicity by Ankhi Mukherjee LAST REVIEWED: 25 October 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 25 October 2017 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0054

The English word “canon” is derived from the Greek kanon , which translates as “rod,” “measuring stick,” or to “rule.” David Ruhnken first used the word in 1768 for selections of authors, a usage that, Rudolph Pfeiffer notes, was catachrestic. In subsequent uses of the term, the selective and regulative meanings of the term have become increasingly interchangeable: as Wendell V. Harris points out, “selections suggest norms, and norms suggest an appeal to some sort of authority” ( The HBJ Anthology of Drama . San Diego, CA: Harcourt College Publishers, 1993, p. 1003). The ecclesiastical use of the term “canon” for definitive books of the Bible reinforces the normative charge of the term, though the literary canon is considerably more flexible than its biblical counterpart. “The desire to have a canon, more or less unchanging, and to protect it against the charges of inauthenticity or low value . . . is an aspect of the necessary conservatism of a learned institution” ( The Classic: Literary Images of Permanence and Change , p. 173), Frank Kermode observes. Canonicity involves not merely a work’s admission into an elite club, but its induction into ongoing critical dialogue and contestations of literary value. The canon is a set of texts whose value and readability have borne the test of time: it is also the modality that establishes the criteria to be deployed for assessing these texts.

Secular and literary applications of the term “canon” refer to a constellation of highly valued, high-cultural texts that have traditionally acted as arbiters of literary value, determining the discipline of literary studies as well as influencing the critical and cultural reception of literature. It has been a matter of sustained debate in the academy whether the persistence of ideas of canonicity in the 20th century (as evidenced in the burgeoning market for authoritative selections, such as the literary anthology) is a function of cultural conservatism or is simply a validation of enduring aesthetic value. Most notable of these are the disagreements in the 1930s and 1940s concerning the highly restrictive “Great Tradition,” consisting of the work of just four novelists ( Leavis 1948 ), and the so-called canon wars of the 1980s and 1990s in American universities. In Bloom 1994 , his influential work on the subject, Yale critic Harold Bloom offers several approximate definitions of canonicity. Bloom 1973 paved the way for the magisterial work on the canonicity by looking at literary relations in terms of a psychoanalytical theory of relationality, namely the Oedipal struggle between predecessor and latecomer poets. Bloom 2001 perpetuates the pedagogical task of Bloom 1994 , where the learned critic teaches how to read the texts that must be read by example. The opening of the syllabus of canonical works to new contenders is not without controversy and fierce contention. While Bloom vehemently protests a method of selection where aesthetic standards are brushed aside for the cultural contexts and political relevance of a given work, Guillory 2013 , in a more considered response, expresses misgivings about the simplistic opposition between dominant and dominated cultures.

Altieri, Charles. “An Idea and Ideal of a Literary Canon.” Critical Inquiry 10.1 (1983): 37–60.

DOI: 10.1086/448236

Altieri positions himself as an adversary to what he identifies as the “critical historicism” and a “hermeneutics of suspicion” that characterizes contemporary critical methodology. The essay espouses instead the “permanent theater” of the past preserved by the canon, which provides the distance, perspective, and variety of human experience required to question petty self-interest and entrenched ideologies.

Altieri, Charles. Canons and Consequences: Reflections on the Ethical Force of Imaginative Ideals . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1990.

This work finds the demystifying critiques of post-structuralism and New Historicism wanting as pedagogies and turns instead to the evaluative vocabularies and what Altieri calls the “contrastive grammar” of the canon. According to Altieri, the canon offers an amplified humanism and a vital resource for the present, which offsets the narcissistic self-interest and limited contemporary perspectives.

Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry . New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Harold Bloom’s version of T. S. Eliot’s “Tradition and the Individual Talent” essay, Anxiety of Influence is a powerful study of Romantic poets and their intellectual genealogies. Bloom sees canonical continuities being perpetuated in the negative mode of misreading or “misprision.” The canon, by this definition, is an achieved anxiety; as Bloom observes, the poem is a poet’s melancholy at his lack of priority.

Bloom, Harold. The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages . New York: Harcourt Brace, 1994.

The canon is “the literary Art of Memory,” which receives, retains, and orders selective works. (p. 17). The canon, Bloom argues, is a standard of measurement that cannot be tethered to political or moral considerations: it should remain instead “a gauge of vitality” (p. 38). Finally, Bloom declares, the canon is “Shakespeare and Dante,” offering creative readings of twenty-six of the most prominent canonical authors, and a list of 400 canonical authors or works.

Bloom, Harold. How to Read and Why . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001.

Using a selection of literary genres—short stories, novels, narrative and lyric poetry, and plays—Bloom expatiates on the programmatic and unpredictable aspects of reading, all the while outlining the ways in which the singularity of canonical texts is best captured.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste . Translated by Richard Nice. New York: Routledge, 1986.

Regarded as an ethnography of contemporary France and a sociological study of the French bourgeoisie, Distinction is a study of the network of differences that helps the class structure in capitalist societies maintain their power relations. Bourdieu describes the symbols that are created and circulated in the cultural game of distinction. Taste, in this influential formulation, is not pure or innocent, but an instrument of domination; culture is a mode of perpetuating class difference.

Calvino, Italo. The Literature Machine: Essays . Translated by Patrick Creagh. London: Vintage, 1997.

A collection of thirty six essays offering Italo Calvino’s musings on literary classics of his choosing, this posthumous publication offers a rare glimpse into the author’s narrative imagination and the evolution of his literary taste, from Conrad to Borges, or neorealism to fantasy. Essays such as “Why Read the Classics?” and “Whom Do We Write For?” directly address the question of the canon as it is formulated and perpetuated.

English, James E. Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

English takes his inspiration from John Guillory’s conceptualization of cultural capital in this work that examines the ascendancy of prize culture and the awards industry in the modern, globalized world, and the role these play in the determination and circulation of cultural value. English expertly brings together the seemingly disparate worlds of business and pleasure, art and commerce, as he looks at this unique mode of canon formation as well as its discontents.

Guillory, John. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

A valuable contribution to the canonical versus non-canonical debate, the book recognizes the asymmetry of power between the Western cultural Goliath and its “Davidic multicultural antagonists” but also cautions that perceived disunities of culture cannot be remedied by forging cultural unities (of gender, race, sexualities, subcultures) at the level of the curriculum. According to Guillory, the canon should be envisioned not as a set of books but as an instrument of transmission.

Leavis, F. R. The Great Tradition . London: Chatto and Windus, 1948.

Leavis names four authors—Jane Austen, George Eliot. Henry James and Joseph Conrad—as the constituent figures of the great tradition of English fiction, including other works and authors. The force of the work derives from the depth of Leavis’s engagement with the semiotics and narrative structures of the text and his historical understanding of the way in which the authors, each a cultural outsider, captured the zeitgeist.

Leavis, F. R. The Great Tradition: George Eliot, Henry James, Joseph Conrad . London: Faber and Faber, 2008.

Originally published 1900. The structuring argument of this work is that latecomer poets are influenced by precursor poets, whose abiding power must be acknowledged as well as disavowed. Bloom’s approach is Freudian, and he deploys psychoanalytic terms such as “anxiety,” “repression,” “aggressiveness,” and “disavowal” to define the masculinist poetics of canon transmission.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Literary and Critical Theory »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Achebe, Chinua
Adorno, Theodor
Aesthetics, Post-Soul
Affect Studies
Afrofuturism
Agamben, Giorgio
Anzaldúa, Gloria E.
Apel, Karl-Otto
Appadurai, Arjun
Badiou, Alain
Baudrillard, Jean
Belsey, Catherine
Benjamin, Walter
Bettelheim, Bruno
Bhabha, Homi K.
Biopower, Biopolitics and
Black Atlantic
Blanchot, Maurice
Bloom, Harold
Bourdieu, Pierre
Brecht, Bertolt
Brooks, Cleanth
Caputo, John D.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh
Conversation Analysis
Cosmopolitanism
Creolization/Créolité
Crip Theory
Critical Theory
Cultural Materialism
de Certeau, Michel
de Man, Paul
de Saussure, Ferdinand
Deconstruction
Deleuze, Gilles
Derrida, Jacques
Dollimore, Jonathan
Du Bois, W.E.B.
Eagleton, Terry
Eco, Umberto
Ecocriticism
English Colonial Discourse and India
Environmental Ethics
Fanon, Frantz
Feminism, Transnational
Foucault, Michel
Frankfurt School
Freud, Sigmund
Frye, Northrop
Genet, Jean
Girard, René
Goldberg, Jonathan
Gramsci, Antonio
Greimas, Algirdas Julien
Grief and Comparative Literature
Guattari, Félix
Habermas, Jürgen
Haraway, Donna J.
Hartman, Geoffrey
Hawkes, Terence
Hebdige, Dick
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hemispheric Studies
Hermeneutics
Hillis-Miller, J.
Holocaust Literature
Human Rights and Literature
Humanitarian Fiction
Hutcheon, Linda
Žižek, Slavoj
Imperial Masculinity
Irigaray, Luce
Jameson, Fredric
JanMohamed, Abdul R.
Johnson, Barbara
Kagame, Alexis
Kolodny, Annette
Kristeva, Julia
Lacan, Jacques
Laclau, Ernesto
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe
Laplanche, Jean
Leavis, F. R.
Levinas, Emmanuel
Levi-Strauss, Claude
Literature, Dalit
Lonergan, Bernard
Lotman, Jurij
Lukács, Georg
Lyotard, Jean-François
Metz, Christian
Morrison, Toni
Mouffe, Chantal
Nancy, Jean-Luc
Neo-Slave Narratives
New Historicism
New Materialism
Partition Literature
Peirce, Charles Sanders
Philosophy of Theater, The
Posthumanism
Postmodernism
Post-Structuralism
Psychoanalytic Theory
Queer Medieval
Queer Theory
Race and Disability
Rancière, Jacques
Ransom, John Crowe
Reader Response Theory
Rich, Adrienne
Richards, I. A.
Ronell, Avital
Rosenblatt, Louse
Said, Edward
Schleiermacher, Friedrich
Settler Colonialism
Socialist/Marxist Feminism
Stiegler, Bernard
Structuralism
Theatre of the Absurd
Thing Theory
Tolstoy, Leo
Tomashevsky, Boris
Translation
Transnationalism in Postcolonial and Subaltern Studies
Virilio, Paul
Warren, Robert Penn
White, Hayden
Wittig, Monique
Zimmerman, Bonnie
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
185.80.149.115

All Subjects

Intro to Literary Theory

Study guides for every class, that actually explain what's on your next test, literary canon, from class:.

The literary canon refers to a collection of works that are considered to be the most important, influential, and representative of a particular literary tradition or period. This collection often shapes what is taught in schools and how literature is perceived by society, reflecting cultural values and norms while sometimes excluding marginalized voices. The canon evolves over time as new works gain recognition and others fade in prominence.

congrats on reading the definition of literary canon . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

The literary canon is not static; it changes over time as societal values shift and new literary voices emerge, challenging previously established norms.
Many critics argue that the canon has historically favored works by white male authors, leading to calls for a more inclusive approach that incorporates diverse perspectives.
Reception theory suggests that how readers interpret canonical texts can vary widely based on cultural context, impacting their place within the literary canon.
The establishment of a literary canon can influence educational curricula, determining what literature students are exposed to and which themes are emphasized.
Different literary movements and genres have their own canons, reflecting unique cultural contexts and artistic values, such as the American Gothic or feminist literature.

Review Questions

The literary canon reflects societal values by highlighting certain works that align with prevailing cultural norms and ideologies. These selected texts often become central in educational practices, shaping what students read and how they understand literature. By establishing a set of 'important' works, educators may inadvertently exclude diverse voices and perspectives, leading to a narrow understanding of literature that may not accurately represent the complexity of human experiences.
Reception theory emphasizes that a reader's interpretation is influenced by their individual context, including historical, cultural, and personal factors. This means that works within the literary canon can be understood differently by various audiences over time. As cultural perspectives shift, so too can the significance of canonical texts; what was once considered a masterpiece may be re-evaluated or even challenged as new interpretations arise, reflecting changes in societal values and beliefs.
Including postcolonial literature in discussions about the literary canon has significant implications for both literature and society. It challenges the traditional dominance of Western narratives and offers alternative viewpoints that reflect marginalized experiences. This inclusion broadens our understanding of literature by acknowledging diverse voices and stories that have been historically overlooked. As a result, it prompts critical conversations about representation, power dynamics in storytelling, and the ongoing evolution of what is deemed 'literary' in different cultural contexts.

Related terms

Cannon Fodder : A term that highlights how certain works are often considered expendable or less valuable within literary discussions, contrasting with those that are part of the canon.

The dominance of one cultural group over others, influencing which works are included in the canon based on prevailing societal values and beliefs.

Postcolonial Literature : Literature produced in response to colonialism, which often challenges the traditional literary canon by bringing attention to previously marginalized voices.

" Literary canon " also found in:

Subjects ( 16 ).

African American Literature Before 1900
American Literature Since 1860
Classical Poetics
Classics of the Ancient Mediterranean World
English and Language Arts Education
History of Theatre II: Cities at Play from the Renaissance to the Rise of Realism
Introduction to Comparative Literature
Introduction to Comparative Literature: Literary and Cultural History
Introduction to Modern Chinese Literature and Culture
Introduction to Modern Japanese Literature and Culture
Introduction to Premodern Chinese Literature and Culture
Introduction to Premodern Korean Literature and Culture
Literature in English: Late-17th to Mid-19th Century
Middle English Literature

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..