Untitled - Sexey's School Moodle

consequently, loses its transgressive essence for it cannot be longer characterized as
breaching boundaries or as being “limitless”: it becomes confined by finding its place
within cultural and political discourse, and ultimately within canonical and social
institutions represented in academia. The same authors also argue that once transgressive
works are processed and accepted as cultural capital they are no longer perceived as
transgressive; they either become the norm or reinstate the norm. This is why perhaps
Foucault relies mostly on a “pure” definition of transgression, one which is neither
scandalous nor subversive and is detached from any cultural, social, or political
discourses.
Perhaps transgression has indeed become the norm and, as a result, its potential to
subvert has greatly been impoverished. But have transgressions ceased to exist, and are
all transgressions created equal or treated equally? Considering that all subsequent
negotiations of transgression—such as its power to subvert both the rules of art and the
rule of the state—relies on the element of shock, transgression relies primarily on public
reaction. How, specifically, does a transgressive text create shock and arouse
controversy? And what are its possible immediate and/or far-reaching consequences on
the literary canon and society in general? The next two chapters will attempt to answer
these questions by taking a detailed look at two exemplary transgressive texts: Matthew
Lewis’ The Monk and Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho. Through its history of
distribution and consumption, The Monk’s value as cultural capital has gradually
increased in academia. An analysis of its reception with regard to canonical and socio-
political discourses will allow me to trace the operation of such exchanges since the date
of its publication in 1796. The subsequent discussion of American Psycho will
89