The Power And The Literary Canon

The literary canon is never an innate existence. Its formation and destiny change not only relate to aesthetic factors of text itself, but also to state ideology and mainstream discourse. In addition, it closely connects to aesthetic taste and values of certain epoch and power operation around them. This thesis attempts to discuss the relationship between discourse power and literary canon. Make an effort on analysis of this relationship from literary history and postcolonial writing perspective.This thesis consists of three chapters. The first chapter mainly explains the inseparable relationship between literary canon and discourse power, basing on the theory of discourse power of Michel Foucault who is a French thinker, and the field theory of Pierre Bourdieu. This chapter starts with the analysis of the relationship between discourse and power. It mainly points out the formation of literary canon is the result of power competes to a certain extent. Literary canon is the text that owns the general acceptance and validity. Actors struggle to gain control in the literary field establish their own valid position and win more culture capital. So compete for canon in fact refers to compete for power. Once the works are established as the classic text it would establish one kind of value hierarchy and order, having the power to stander other texts. And it also composes the reasons that privileged stratum of culture rejects and despises the text which not having'canon quality'as well. In addition, the power in canon also shows that it strengthened the advantageous cultural status of powerful talkers, thus intensified the discourse power of the talker further.The second chapter probes into the relationship between literary canon and narration of literary history which basing on American theorist Hayden White's meta-history theory. This chapter begins with the analysis of the powerful relationship in narration of literary history. It mainly points out that the history of literature as a kind of history narrative is not the simple duplication of'literary history'. It undergoes the careful chosen and reconstruction of the literary historian. It also consists of the literary historian's value judgment on the works. This value judgment is a power form, it contains acceptance and exclusion as well as showing and obstacles, and it also shows that the literary history controls the text production and canonization. Rewriting of the literary history is the transformation of literary history judgment criterion in surface, but indeed, it implies the alternation of narrative power. The position of literary canon is not invariable but flowing as the key and core component in literary narrative. It will tend to the edge from the center, and go toward the center by the edge continuously under the control of power of literary history. So literary history is not only a process of solidify and construct the canon but also a process of select and eliminate the canon.The third chapter discusses the relationship between literary canon and postcolonial writing, basing on the postcolonial theory of Edward. W. Said who is a Palestinian-American. This chapter mainly argues western discourse is in a hegemonic position to eastern culture, dominants the literary canon for a long time, places orient works on an absent predicament position through analysis of the unequal status between the East and West. It implies that the West suppresses and deprives the discourse power of the East from the great disparity in status. Postcolonial writing just tries to resist the centralism from the marginalism,exposes the essence of western cultural hegemony and struggle for the power of self-expression, through deconstructs the Western canon and reconstructs the Eastern canon. They form a new kind perspective on power. In the process of collision and confrontation with the Western writing, although their works can not escape from the narrative pattern of the Western works. This confrontation has shaken the status of the Western canon and orthodox literary history, dismantled its sanctity and singularity. This resistance makes postcolonial writing itself being a new point of view of power. So struggling for a canon status in fact is struggling for discourse power.As a result, literary canon is neither existent innate nor invariable. Its formation has a close relation with the destiny change and the alternation and transformation of the power. Power is pervasive. The literary canon will be ups and downs among the process of defense competition and decomposition of the power.