• Current
• Archives
• Log In
• Register
• Announcements
• About JLT Articles
• For Authors

Home > Vol 8, No 1 (2014) > Kovala

Urpo Kovala

Theories of Context, Theorizing Context

(Abstract)

Full-length article in: JLT 8/1 (2014), 158-177.

Theories of meaning, even outspokenly textualist ones, have always dealt with the question of relevant context as well, to some extent at least. In many fields of research, the idea of an encompassing theory of context has surfaced now and then, and there have also been actual attempts at such a theory, some of which are discussed in this article. At the same time the very concept of context is difficult in many ways. The term has been said to be one of the most widely used and widely abused terms in the humanities and social sciences. Brenda Dervin claims that »there is no term that is more often used, less often defined, and when defined defined so variously as context« (Dervin 1997, 13–14). More specifically, its analytical force suffers from the fact that it encompasses such a vast array of different elements. The many concepts that clearly deal with the relationship between text and context, however in a more limited or specific way, are one proof of this.

The focus in the article is on the project character of ›explicit‹ theories of context – that is, theories which are framed and named as such, and where the concept of context is the key term or one of the key terms. The questions are: what kinds of projects are theories of context? What can they offer and can they surpass the limitations of their starting-points, not the least the very distinction between text and context? What kinds of models of context do these theories rely on? On what levels of analysis (ontology, epistemology, ethics…) are the theories operating and having consequences on? And what is the role of texts in theories of context? The theories discussed in more detail are the ›contextualism‹ of Murray Krieger, Teun van Dijk’s discourse analytic theory of context, radical contextualism represented by Lawrence Grossberg and others, and the contextualist world-hypothesis as described by philosopher Stephen C. Pepper.

Theories of context provide us with different solutions to the dichotomy problem. Krieger’s solution is to bring in some aspects of the context e. g. by way of accounts of reading. A theorist of context may also resort to subsuming both text and context to a wider frame, for instance theory of action (Stierle), or introducing a mediating factor, for instance social cognition (van Dijk). A more radical solution to the problem is to conceptualize both texts and contexts as parts of networks with no obvious centre (Bennett, Hall, Grossberg). In such a configuration, the interpreting subject is also presented not as something apart but as part of a network. In the latter case especially, the concept of context gets heavily redefined.

Even though the text-context distinction is increasingly questioned, it is also obvious that one cannot just do away with the distinction altogether, even by means of alternative conceptualisations. Interpretation is always interpretation of something, and dualism is hard to evade. This has been the problematic point for many scholars advocating a non-dualist approach to meaning. Giving up dualism means giving up some of the answers and perspectives it made possible. This idea of the inherent transitivity of interpretation is very probably deeply rooted in our general modes of perception and supported by both language and our everyday practices, as Stephen C. Pepper pointed out, so that our notions of meaning and interpretation, too, basically follow this assumption. And there is the additional fact that our tacit knowledge of the world lends ample support to this idea.

Why should we keep theorizing context, in spite of the many conceptual problems? First, as Lawrence Grossberg has pointed out, contexts are not »out there« to be picked up – instead, context is both starting point and end of analysis at the same time. Contexts are as much in need of conceptualization as texts. This is a good guiding principle regardless of one’s discipline. Second, contexts are often invisible, especially when they are familiar contexts! They must be teased out, made visible, and this is facilitated by a theoretical contextualist framework. Third, even if we do not aim at and believe in the possibility of an overarching theory of context, we nevertheless cannot avoid dealing with tacit notions of context. These range from notions supported by language and our everyday perceptions and practices to taken-for-granted assumptions often supported by our institutions. This is the reason some scholars, for instance Ansgar Nünning, emphasize the need to theorize context: context theories are always »there«, and if we do not tackle them, they may and will have the kinds of influence on us that we would not like it to have.

What is the role of the text in different theories of context? For Murray Krieger, text is the definite centre. Textualism may be out of date ontologically, but the ›power of the text‹ that Krieger is interested in is something to be paid attention to by theories of context as well. Besides, another reason to keep text in the picture is that, after all, as Pepper and radical contextualists point out, text is context for its contexts! And even in a contextualist framework, bracketing a context has its value: in some cases it may be more fruitful to bypass the most obvious and salient contexts and take up counterintuitive ones, as for instance New Historicists prefer to do.

Is there still need and use for theory of context? Without necessarily aiming at an overarching, systematic grand theory, it is useful to think, with Stuart Hall, that a theory of context as such is not a goal, but to understand meaning-making, we must keep on theorizing context and contextuality.

References

Ang, Ien,Living Room Wars. Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World, London/New York 1996.

Bennett, Tony, The Text in Question, Southern Review 17 (1984), 118–125.

–/Janet Woollacott, Bond and Beyond. The Adventures of a Popular Hero, Basingstoke 1987.

Bex, A. R., Genre as Context, Journal of Literary Semantics 21:1 (1992), 1–16. [CrossRef]

Bonß, Wolfgang/Rainer Hohlfeld/Regine Kollek, Kontextualität – ein neues Paradigma der Wissenschaftsanalyse?, in: W.B./R.H./R.K. (eds), Wissenschaft als Kontext – Kontexte der Wissenschaft, Hamburg 1993, 171–191.

–, Vorüberlegungen zu einem kontextualistischen Modell der Wissenschaftsentwicklung, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 42:3 (1994), 439–454.

Cook, Guy, Transcribing Infinity. Problems of Context Representation, Journal of Pragmatics 1 (1990), 1–24.

Coulter, Jeff, Is contextualising necessarily interpretive?, Journal of Pragmatics 21 (1994), 689–698. [CrossRef]

Culler, Jonathan, On Deconstruction, London 1983.

–, Framing the Sign. Criticism and its Institutions, Oxford 1988.

Deleuze, Gilles/Félix Guattari, Rhizome, I & C 8 (1981), 49–71.

Derrida, Jacques, Spurs: Nietzsche’s Styles, Chicago 1978.

–, Limited Inc, Evanston, Ill. 1988.

Dervin, Brenda, Given a Context by any Other Name: Methodological Tools for Taming the Unruly Beast, in: Pertti Vakkari/Reijo Savolainen/B.D. (eds), Information Seeking in Context. Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14–16 August, 1996, Tampere, Finland, London/Los Angeles 1997, 13–38.

van Dijk, Teun A., Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi 1988.

–, Discourse and Literature, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Pa. 1985.

–, Discourse and Context. A Sociocognitive approach, Cambridge et al. 2008.

–, Society and Discourse. How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk, Cambridge et al. 2009.

Felski, Rita, Context Stinks!, New Literary History 42:4 (2011), 573–591.

Freund, Elisabeth, The Return of the Reader. Reader-response Criticism, London/New York 1987.

Grossberg, Lawrence,We gotta get out of this place. Popular conservatism and postmodern culture, New York/London 1992.

–, The formations of cultural studies, in: Valda Blundell/John Shepherd/Ian Taylor (eds), Relocating cultural studies: developments in theory and research, New York/London 1993, 21–66.

–, The cultural studies crossroads blues, European Cultural Studies 1:1 (1998), 65–82.

–, Contexts of cultural studies?, in: Sirpa Leppänen/Joel Kuortti (eds), Inescapable Horizon. Culture and Context, Jyväskylä 2000, 27–49.

Hall, Stuart, Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance, in: Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism, Paris 1980, 305–345.

–, The rediscovery of ideology: Return of the repressed in media studies, in: Michael Gurevitch et al. (eds), Culture, Society and the Media, London/New York 1982, 56–90.

–, Introduction, in: David Morley (ed.), Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure, London 1986, 7–10.

–, Minimal Selves, in: ICA Documents 6: Identity, London 1987, 44–46.

Hyman, Lawrence W., Autonomy and Distance in a Literary Work: A New Approach to Contextualism, JAAC 31:4 (1973), 467–471.

–, The New Contextualism has Arrived: A Reply to Edward Wasiolek, Critical Inquiry 2 (1975), 380–385.

Iser, Wolfgang, Murray Krieger at Konstanz. A Colloquy Chaired by Wolfgang Iser, in: Bruce Hendricksen (ed.),Murray Krieger and Contemporary Critical Theory, New York 1986, 231–270.

Keesing, Roger, Simple Models of Complexity: The Lure of Kinship, in: Priscilla Reining (ed.), Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centennial Year, Washington 1972, 17–31.

Krieger, Murray, The New Apologists for Poetry, Minneapolis 1956.

–, Contextualism, in: Alex Preminger (ed.),Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics, Princeton 1974.

Laclau, Ernesto, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory, London 1977.

–/Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, London 1985.

Mailloux, Steven, Interpretive Conventions. The Reader in the Study of American Fiction, Ithaca, NY 1982.

Nünning, Ansgar, No Contextualization without Literary Theory and Concepts: Problems, Kinds and Criteria of Contextualizing Literary History, in: Elizabeth Wåghäll Nivre/Beate Schirrmacher/Claudia Egener (eds), (Re-)Contextualizing Literary and Cultural History. The Representation of the Past in Literary and Material Culture, Stockholm 2013, 13–48.

Pepper, Stephen C., World Hypotheses. A Study in Evidence [1942], Berkeley/Los Angeles 1966.

Richards, Christine, Inferential pragmatics and the literary text, Poetics 9 (1985), 261–285.

Sowa, John F., Peircean Foundations for a Theory of Context, in: D. Lukose et al. (eds), Conceptual Structures: Fulfilling Peirce’s Dream, Berlin et al. 1997, 41–64.

Stierle, Karlheinz, Sprechsituation, Kontext und Sprachhandlung. Zur Vorgeschichte einer Texttheorie als Handlungstheorie, in: Hans Lenk (ed.), Handlungstheorien interdisziplinär, vol. 1: Handlungslogik, formale und sprachwissenschaftliche Handlungstheorien, München 1980, 439–483.

Sutton, Walter, The Contextualist Dilemma – or Fallacy?, JAAC 17:2 (1958), 219–229.

–, Contextualist Theory and Criticism as a Social Act, JAAC 19:3 (1961), 317–325.

Taira, Teemu, Deleuze ja kontekstualismi (Deleuze and contextualism), Kulttuurintutkimus 20:4 (2003), 21–34.

Wellek, René/Austin Warren, Austin, Theory of Literature [1949], London 1961.

2015-06-20

JLTonline ISSN 1862-8990

Copyright © by the author. All rights reserved.
This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and JLTonline.
For other permission, please contact JLTonline.

Copyright © 2007 – present JLTonline

Contact Webmaster