Close(d) Reading and the “Potential Space” of the Literature Classroom after Apartheid

Abstract

This article explores psychoanalyst D. W. Winnicott’s ideas about play and “transitional space” or “potential space” in relation to reading, pedagogy, and the legacy of apartheid in South African universities. Following the work of Carol Long, who argues that “apartheid institutions can be understood as the opposite of transitional spaces,” the author draws on her experiences of teaching in the English Department of the University of the Western Cape to reflect on how pedagogy is shaped by institutional culture. The article focuses particularly on “close reading” in the South African university classroom and how a rigid understanding of it has sometimes closed and constrained the experience of reading for students in order to argue for a more open model of “close reading” that values the immersive and creative aspects of reading as well as the analytic, following Winnicott’s understanding of meaningful cultural experience as rooted in play.

“The Quickening Virtue”: Reiterating the Work of the Literary Text

“…She responds to Nortje's comments by claiming that the mode of authoritarian teaching that he had encountered decades earlier has still not been eradicated and alleges that elements of this mode remain in the manner in which, she contends, "the faculty sometimes "teach down" to our students as it were, rather than in participating in a more collaborative act of meaning-making." 23 Reflecting on Nortje's views expressed in a letter to a close friend in which he stated that "The more I think about it, the more I consider that the miserable world needs every living and deceased man or woman who has something poetic to contribute … something from the spirit," 24 she concludes that this is a position he would have developed from his engagement with literature, "even while the institution itself appeared to militate against it." 25 An even more conclusive indictment of the current English Department is, however, reserved for her concluding remarks, where it is stated that "something of the apartheid logic that marked it then persists," which for her is evident in what she describes as "the occasional fetishization of the 'literary' as inherently not 'political' or 'sociological,' defined instead by what it excludes; but is also evident in a demand for a 'close analysis' that is not properly theorized, and in a sometimes rigid and overly prescriptive approach to the set texts and essays."…”

“…23 Reflecting on Nortje's views expressed in a letter to a close friend in which he stated that "The more I think about it, the more I consider that the miserable world needs every living and deceased man or woman who has something poetic to contribute … something from the spirit," 24 she concludes that this is a position he would have developed from his engagement with literature, "even while the institution itself appeared to militate against it." 25 An even more conclusive indictment of the current English Department is, however, reserved for her concluding remarks, where it is stated that "something of the apartheid logic that marked it then persists," which for her is evident in what she describes as "the occasional fetishization of the 'literary' as inherently not 'political' or 'sociological,' defined instead by what it excludes; but is also evident in a demand for a 'close analysis' that is not properly theorized, and in a sometimes rigid and overly prescriptive approach to the set texts and essays." 26 A further difficulty is encountered with her view that "what is often parroted in our department at UWC as at the core of what we do and teach is not close 'reading,' but close 'analysis,' suggesting a particular, dichotomized relationship between reader (subject) and text (object)."…”

“…25 An even more conclusive indictment of the current English Department is, however, reserved for her concluding remarks, where it is stated that "something of the apartheid logic that marked it then persists," which for her is evident in what she describes as "the occasional fetishization of the 'literary' as inherently not 'political' or 'sociological,' defined instead by what it excludes; but is also evident in a demand for a 'close analysis' that is not properly theorized, and in a sometimes rigid and overly prescriptive approach to the set texts and essays." 26 A further difficulty is encountered with her view that "what is often parroted in our department at UWC as at the core of what we do and teach is not close 'reading,' but close 'analysis,' suggesting a particular, dichotomized relationship between reader (subject) and text (object)." 27 If the use of the decidedly prejudicial verb in this description is ignored, then the distinction that is drawn between reading and analysis in this formulation can be scrutinized more carefully.…”

“…26 A further difficulty is encountered with her view that "what is often parroted in our department at UWC as at the core of what we do and teach is not close 'reading,' but close 'analysis,' suggesting a particular, dichotomized relationship between reader (subject) and text (object)." 27 If the use of the decidedly prejudicial verb in this description is ignored, then the distinction that is drawn between reading and analysis in this formulation can be scrutinized more carefully. It is unfortunate that this distinction is not explained in greater detail as it can be argued that it may not be able to be upheld for too long.…”

“…Highman's discussion in relation to what she cites as having "marked literary debates in South Africa" is highly selective with an inordinately unbalanced focus on the "fantasist rantings" of one academic at the expense of other, more progressive developments. 30 One has only to cite a volume of literary theory published in 1982 to acknowledge that any major privileging of what she terms "American new criticism" is misplaced. 31 This volume consisted of essays from ten scholars, many then teaching in language and literature departments across the country at the time; it covered a range of theoretical approaches, including Russian formalism, semiotics, Marxism, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and feminism.…”