Jaargang 8, nommer 2 – Augustus 2011 - LitNet

Summary
LitNet Akademies Jaargang 8(2) – Augustus 2011
Literatuur in die marge: Die plek van die
middelmoot-literatuur
H.P. van Coller
Departement Afrikaans en Nederlands, Duits en Frans
Universiteit van die Vrystaat
Literature in the margins. The place of middlebrow literature in the literary
system
The article is based on the assumption that any literary system or literary field (which are
treated here as synonyms) consists of different entities or components that are dedicated to
establishing clear boundaries and even hierarchy. Within this system there is a canon based
on inclusion and exclusion. These in­ and excluding mechanisms are based on poetic and
ideological viewpoints, therefore also on aesthetic judgements.
It is especially “middlebrow” (Dutch middelmaat; Afrikaans middelmoot) literature that has
always been seen as a disguised threat to the established canon. In any given literary system
the ratio of “middlebrow” literature to “high” literature is problematic, because it relates to
the way culture is considered and the value that is placed on the discernment of such a
specific category – one that essentially constitutes a compromise (between “high” and “low”).
Middlebrow refers to culture that is neither high nor low. Yet the concept is clearly negative in
nature, as evidenced by Virginia Woolf’s unsent letter to the New Statesman in the ’30s of the
20th century, which was included and published in The death of the moth and other essays
(1942), in which she sees the “middlebrow” as an intellectually inferior group compared with
those groups that are actually cultivated. The term highbrow is synonymous with intellectual
and always carries the connotation of the elite and “high” culture.
In a recent article Huigen (2009) engages with Francken and Praamstra (2008b) following
an article in which they claim that literature should be studied from the viewpoint of
“literariness”. Huigen (2009:254) considers such a position internationally “obsolete”. With
reference to Edward Said and T.E. Hulme, Huigen (2009:254) claims that aesthetic aspects
play a role only in the “level of text interpretation, not in the definition of the corpus”. For
Huigen “literariness” is a normative concept and not a neutral instrument with which to
categorise texts. He points out that the term is derived from the Russian Formalists, who
viewed literary language as a special form of language that deviates from normal, everyday
language. The problem is, Huigen continues, that the “literary” form of language also appears
in texts that do not belong to literature (like advertisements), and much depends on how the
texts are read – one could read a weather report in a literary way.
Huigen’s “functionalist” approach to literature (also known as historicism or cultural
relativism) is tantamount to an abdication of the own historical position and the result is an
absolute relativism. If contemporaries’ definition of literature should be taken as a guideline,
then it follows logically that their estimate of value should prevail. Huigen’s position denies
66
ISSN 1995-5928 | Tel: 021 886 5169 | E-pos: akademies@litnet.co.za