New Historicism bans theoretical distance and leaves readers empty-handed

Evidence

We will therefore describe the New Historicism as a return to immanence and to a prolongation of the procedures of “homology” which eschews homology’s theory and abandons the concept of “structure.” This is also an aesthetic (or a writing convention, or mode of Darstellung) for which a formal rule emerges governing something like a ban or taboo on theoretical discussion and on the taking of interpretive distance from the material, the drawing up of a provisional balance sheet, the summary of the “points” that have been made. Elegance here consists in constructing bridge passages between the various concrete analyses, transitions or modulations inventive enough to preclude the posing of theoretical or interpretive questions. Immanence, the suppression of distance, must be maintained during these crucial transitional moments in such a way as to keep the mind involved in detail and immediacy. Whence, in the most successful of such artifacts, that sense of breathlessness, of admiration for the brilliance of the performance, but yet bewilderment, at the conclusion of the essay, from which one seems to emerge with empty hands — without ideas and interpretations to carry away with us. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 432

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines New Historicism’s formal method as immanent, theory-eschewing homology — useful for distinguishing it as a cultural form from content.
• XREF: The ‘suppression of distance’ and reader bewilderment foreshadows the ‘waning of affect’ and depthlessness Jameson argues is postmodern — an internal link within the book. — connects to: No foundational critique links historicism’s growth to imperialist practice. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 712