 In this video, I'd like to take a look at the critical framework of new historicism. New historicism provides us with a different kind of perspective on artifacts that tells us that things are sort of relative and things need to be considered in context, so to speak. So let's take a look at what we mean. First of all, new historicism examines artifacts using a framework that considers an artifact within the context of the time period, and therefore the cultural, political, and other influences of that time. So it's saying that an artifact cannot be completely removed from the time that it was created, and that that needs to be a consideration when you're examining an artifact, an item, whatever that piece is, that we need to consider what was going on at that time, how is this a reflection of that time period, and what cultural influences and constraints were, in effect, when this piece was created. So let's take a look at some of the major premises of new historicism. First of all, and this is a really critical one, it identifies and acknowledges that human history is a human construct, that people create history. Now there are, of course, events that happen, and things that happen, and those are facts, but then when we consider those things in hindsight, so to speak, almost immediately when things happen, science tells us that our memory starts to kind of shape that event in a different way, not in a completely different way necessarily, but we start to put our own little spin on it, we see it in our own perspective, and therefore when we retell that event, or when we remember that event, it may change over time to take on more of our perspective, we may kind of smooth out some of the rougher edges, or maybe highlight some of the pieces that we want to be highlighted in that memory, and also that history is, of course, written by the victors, as the old saying goes, history is written by the victorious. So we can take a look, for example, in terms of American history, you don't have a lot of perspective from Native Americans. You don't have a lot of perspective in our current telling of American history of Native Americans or African Americans or so forth, it's really told, history is really told from the perspective of Caucasian Americans, of European settling Americans really, because we were the quote unquote victors, so to speak, at the top of the power structure. So we were able to weeping white people Caucasians were able to kind of construct that narrative for history, and so history is a human construct, it does have some perspective. So for example, we think back again, at the beginnings of the American Revolution, talk about the founding fathers, and these people, these are people who have become sort of idolized in our history, we've come to see them as sort of, you know, all good people, right, and just did nothing but wonderful things, and they did a lot of amazing things to start this country, and there were a lot of important decisions that they made and so forth. But at the same time, three of the five people in this picture were slave owners. All five of them agreed to, you know, a constitution or a basic set of set of laws initially that excluded essentially excluded women, and really oppressed in a systematic way, people of color and people of different races and nationalities and so forth, and set into in place a power structure that was almost exclusive to wealthy, landowning white men. So, I mean, there's those pieces of history that we kind of gloss over a lot of times when we're talking about the American Revolution and how things unfolded at that time, and we know from their writings that there were several of these people, several people in this picture of Washington, John Adams, for example, had serious misgivings about the institution of slavery and the oppression of really women and people of color, and yet went along, kind of went along to get along because they felt like that's what they had to do in order to get the rest of these things rolling. They didn't feel like there would be any potential for a kind of cohesive United States in that sense if they didn't go along with those things, so they gave in. I mean, they were fallible people. These were not perfect people. They were not infallible. They did maybe the best they thought they could at that time, and now we know we're paying the consequences for those choices, though, and that those choices had serious consequences and have put into place systemic policies that have been difficult to make level playing ground for anybody, but again, white men, really. We're talking about women, people of color, people of different nationalities and so forth. Anyway, but we construct this kind of idealized rose-colored version of American history where everything unfolded perfectly, right? And we know it didn't. But that's because history is a human construct that we put together, and that's an important premise when we're thinking about new historicism. Another important premise is that an artifact cannot be removed from the socio-cultural context in which it was created. It's almost impossible for us to look at the original constitution without considering the context in which it was created. We have to consider what the political climate was, the cultural climate was, and so forth, and look at it in those ways instead of putting on those rose-colored glasses, right? In a similar way, we could talk about this in the context of the Bible. When we think about the Bible, the Bible was written over a period of a lot of years, right? The Old Testament, the New Testament, and so forth. But even if we just focus our discussion on the New Testament, we can look at that in terms of... And we can understand that there was written in a specific socio-cultural context, right? That these people were living in a particular time, and so they had particular cultures and traditions and ideas about the way the world worked that would have influenced the way that they wrote. Now, of course, as Christians, we believe that there are certain God-given pieces of wisdom and guidance and direction and things like that that really shine through that and transcend that type of thing. But if we look at it in a larger context, we look at the narrative surrounding the Bible and things that we can really understand in the context, and we have to place that in context then, which helps explain why women don't play a prevalent part of the Bible because they weren't in a power position during the context of the writing of the Bible during that culture. In that culture, they were not in a real power position. They were subordinate to men. And so that's one aspect of the Bible we can look at. And we need to understand that going into it, that what was true about the views of women in biblical times may not be the case today. So there are specific things in the narratives surrounding all these other pieces that can be important to separate from the other pieces. Another thing that we can look at here kind of conversely, excuse me, and say that artifacts can be valuable resources in understanding the sociocultural context of the period. So in this sense, we can look at the Bible and say it almost serves as a sort of history book, right? We can look at this and have a better understanding of what it was like to live during those times, to be somebody who lives in those times, because we can get an idea, we get that we can see that narrative, and we can understand what their thoughts were and what their beliefs were at that time and how their culture kind of acted, how people acted in that culture, how people behaved in that culture, what the rules were and so forth. So we can gain some understanding of that period by reading these artifacts, by reading the Bible. Initially, in New Historicism, this is one of the things they learned by looking a lot at the pieces of Shakespeare, at the work of William Shakespeare. Not only did they understand that, okay, we have to look at this, at what's happening in these plays in the context of what that culture was like at that time, but then they also thought, well, we can also learn a lot about what culture was like at that time by reading these plays, by understanding that the author of these plays, so Shakespeare in this instance, is writing about what he knows and what that culture is, and so we can learn about what the culture was like during Shakespeare's time by reading his work. So it kind of goes both ways. We need to understand and place these artifacts in context of that time and that sociocultural period, but we can also look at it as a way to learn about that sociocultural period and context by reading these works or by looking at these artifacts. Interesting. So everything is relative, really, is what what New Historicism would say. Everything is relative. They're the old saying that there are three sides to every story, right? Your side, my side and the truth. Somewhere in the middle there lies the truth because everybody kind of puts their own perspective on things and sees it in their own view. And it's not that it's not true. It's just that they're different, right? Then maybe what actually happened? So everything is relative and New Historicism would have us look at artifacts in that light. So some common questions you come across in New Historicism. First of all, what language, characters, or events present in the work reflect the current events of the author's day. So trying to understand what are the context, what's the context of this in which this artifact was created and how is that present in the work here? Are there words or imagery in the artifact that have changed their meaning from the time of the writing or creation of this? So what is there that's now different? So, for example, again, in the context of the Bible, the largely large absence of women for the most part in the Bible and at least in central roles by and large in the Bible is a product of that time. And so the artifact will be influenced then by that. However, such events interpreted and presented, again, placing these in context. How are these things placed in those times based on significant events? How are these events interpreted and presented then within that context? How are the interpretation and presentation of these events a product of the culture of the author? Again, so bringing things back to the perspective of the author or the creator of this piece, how would their view of whatever event they're representing here or presenting be present there? And how would that be influenced by the culture that they were in? Does the works presentation support or condemn the event? So did they take a side on whatever had happened? And if so, what and how did that impact their work? Can it be seen to do both? You know, pretty sure. What were they on? Did it support or condemn the event? Or did the author, the creator of this artifact seem to do both both support and or condemn the event? How does this portrayal criticize the leading political figures or movements of the day? So again, how much did this piece or this author, this creator get into what was happening and did they use that as an opportunity to kind of critique or criticize the major figures or movements at that time? And how does the artifact function as part of a continuum with other historical cultural texts or artifacts of the same period? So where does this fit in with everything else? We know about that period. Where does this fit in with all the other items that come from that period? And and and how is this is? How is this a piece of a larger puzzle, in other words? So I want to give you this kind of a specific or a little more specific example of how we identify these questions, how we look at these questions. So I chose actually from something from the Bible, which we've been talking about, but I want to be more specific than that. I want to take a look. I've been personally studying the book of Romans lately. So I just I found that an interesting connection here. When I think about Romans, which of course is a letter from the Apostle Paul, right? So we know that this is a letter from Paul written to new Christians in in Rome, who were living in Rome. So writing to Christians in Rome. So that's the specific context here. So what are some things we need to consider? What language characters or events present in the work reflect the current events of the author's day? So obviously, Paul is primarily talking about the the the the fact that Christ came to earth at the Son of God and was then killed and resurrected. And, you know, but was the Messiah prophesied in Jewish history? And, you know, then in Old Testament Christian history, of course, was that Jesus was that Messiah that he was the Son of God who was prophesied. That's the event that he's focusing on, which of course was a major event in that time period. So so that was the the primary situation there. It was a cause of great upheaval, political and social upheaval at that time, too. There was a lot of oppression of Christians and and and so a lot of, you know, negativity toward Christians. So I was not necessarily a popular event in some ways. And so and especially converting from Judaism to Christianity in recognition of the fact that Jesus was the Messiah was prophesied was was pretty kind of controversial. It was kind of a big step for people. So so that was the big event. So I think that Paul was referring to, obviously, and writing about in the book of Romans was the coming of the Messiah. What did that mean? How is it proved? And how did that affect people who were choosing to follow Christ? Are there words and imagery in the artifact that have changed their meaning from the time of their writing? Certainly. I mean, we have in a literal sense, we have the direct translation from the original language of that Paul wrote in into English. So there are obviously some there are always some changes there that come with that some changes in the language and things that come with that. But I also think just in terms of the context, it's important to remember that that Paul was writing largely to to essentially Messianic Jews, right? To people who had been Jewish and raised in the Jewish faith and all of that and had really either had or were on the fence about either had committed to Christ and recognizing him as the Messiah or very close to that. But we're still struggling a little bit, maybe with the idea of how does this how does this jive with everything that we know to be true from our Jewish faith and how. And so Paul, who, of course, was as well initially, I mean, was and, you know, a very schooled academic Jew who converted then to Christianity, obviously. And so Paul knew how to speak their language, so to speak. So but and so he was doing so in Romans struck by as I'm reading this, I'm struck by how powerful persuader Paul is and how much he's able to connect really with these people, understand the need to connect with these people and their underlying faith and the underlying Jewish faith and how that then does not contradict the coming of Christ, but in fact supports the coming of Christ and writing about that. And and obviously this this train sense, you know, for those of us in current days who who didn't start in the Jewish faith, even who, you know, but but Romans is a critical book for for us as new Christians and even as even as major Christians in understanding, you know, kind of God's will and the process of what it means to come to faith through Christ. And so anyway, but the imagery there and the language that he's using to kind of convert or or reassure Jews is a Jew, Missianic Jews in Rome at that time is still applicable here, but does change a little bit as we move into English and and have a broader understanding for ourselves. How are such events interpreted and presented? Well, he goes very, very specifically into detail about, you know, what it means and how this is connected to Jewish traditions and Jewish faith and how those translate into Christianity and so forth. And so he really does touch specifically on a lot of those events throughout the book of Romans, the letter to the Romans. And however, the interpretation and presentation of these events, a product of the culture of that author. Well, I mean, being Jewish was Paul's predominant culture for most most of his life up to his conversion. Obviously, I mean, he was a very, very committed Jew had gone to to all the best schools and done all the studying and things was actually persecuting Christians as a Jew, persecuting Christians to fight against this sort of tide of Christianity up to his conversion, of course. So that was a very, very big part of his culture and the culture of the people that he was writing to, though, right? So interpreting those through and viewing this book sort of through the eyes of somebody who is speaking to people of the Jewish heritage and Jewish culture is, I think, an important part of understanding the, you know, in context what this book says. And then there are obviously lots of things that apply to us. And as we seek to understand what it means to be committed to Christ and to make that commitment and what that process looks like and what it means for us and all that. But but in the most specific interpretation, this is really about convincing or converting people of Jewish faith at that time to to come to an understanding of and belief in Christ. Does the work presentation support or condemn the event? Obviously, he supports the event pretty, pretty strongly. And so how much question there that Paul is in support of the event of supporting the case for Christ as the Messiah can it be seen to do both not in this instance? I don't think he doesn't really condemn that event. Obviously, supporting it pretty firmly. How does this portrayal criticize the leading political figures or movements of the day? In some ways, it does. It is a direct contradiction to Jewish heritage and history and not history, but the Jewish faith not extending to seeing Christ as the Messiah. So it was it was contradicting that in a very specific way. And how does this artifact function as a part of the continuum of other with other historical cultural texts from the same period? Obviously, this one is a very clear part of a larger collection of letters and books and things like that that we that we know is the Bible. We can also view it in the context of other historical texts and and understanding of history at that time that can provide some context and background of these things. But so I think, yeah, obviously, does function as a part of a of a continuum there. So. So I think new historicism is one of the neatest critical frameworks that we have. I think understanding things in context is so important and understanding the fuller context of when these things happen and what the impact was at that time and how we view things differently. And, you know, I think now, especially today, we have a much for an understanding, for example, of of American history and the complicated aspects of American history. And and, for example, our our racial history and our history history with with women and other minorities and things that provide a great deal of context and a fuller context than that of what we may have been taught over the years. And new historicism would say that's a good thing. That's what we should be doing. We should be working and seeking to understand these things in context. If you have any questions about new historicism or any other critical frameworks, please feel free to email me and be happy to chat with you through that. But in the meantime, really, just do your best to understand that things happen in context. Things are relative and we have a lot to learn from them and a lot to learn about that culture from those things. But we need to view things in perspective. And that really is the message of new historicism.