言語社会研究科	  博士論文要旨	 	 著	  	  	  	  	  者	  	  近藤	  康裕	  (Yasuhiro KONDO)	 
論	  文	  題	  目	  	  A Genealogy of Reading: Critical Consciousness in D. H. Lawrence,Raymond Williams, Doris Lessing, and John Fowles
学位取得年月日	  2010年3月23日	 	 This dissertation consists of these chapters and sections as follows:

Introduction
Chapter 1—Evaluation, Continuity, Repetition: From D. H. Lawrence to the New Left
1. The Critique of Value and Evaluation
2. Continuity and Repetition
3. Lawrence’s Metaphysic and the New Left
Chapter 2—Lawrence’s Metaphysic in “The Prussian Officer” and The Plumed Serpent
1. Deconstructing Life and Death in “The Prussian Officer”
2. The Reversal of Instincts in The Plumed Serpent
3. Violence and Its Cure: An Ethical Problem
4. Blood, Drive or Lawrence’s Metaphysic
Chapter 3—Lawrentian Themes in John Fowles’s Daniel Martin
1. The Problem of Representation and History
2. Knowing and the Symbolic
3. Lawrence, Fowles, Williams
Chapter 4—The Critique of Reading and Criticism in Raymond Williams’s Earlier Works
1. F. R. Leavis and the Times of Scrutiny
2. Reading and Criticism
3. Towards Textual Politics
Chapter 5—Reading, Writing, and Feeling in Doris Lessing’s The Golden Notebook
1. Fragmentation, Wholeness or the Aporia of the Text
2. “Acts-Events” of Reading and Writing
3. The Small Personal Voice
4. Form, “Feel,” and the “Structure of Feeling”
Chapter 6—What Are the Ghosts? : Allegories of Reading and Writing in Daniel Martin
1. A Theoretical Outline of the Ethics of the Novel
2. Ghosts as Indefinable Tropes

1

3. Totality and Language
4. Allegories of Reading and Writing
Conclusion

Chapter 1 attempts to elucidate the relationship between Lawrence and the New Left writers with a
special focus on Williams, who fully appreciates the theoretical possibilities of Lawrence’s insight into
various issues caused by capitalist modernity and also into the problem of history. The critique of value isfirstly discussed in reference to Marx’s argument about the form of value. The critique of value leads to areconsideration of the act of evaluation, which is the very basis of reading literary works and of criticism.
Both Lawrence and Williams foreground the problem of evaluation in terms of their responses to, andtheir experience of, the situation of modernity. Evaluation is concerned with the problem of relation orrelatedness, and evaluating the historical condition of modernity leads to the theme of repetition. NewLeft writers evaluate the present crisis and find the situation closely related to one experienced anddescribed by Lawrence; thus, they think of Lawrence as their precursor, and follow the trace of theprecursor’s experience and works in order to be agents for the “long revolution” in which Lawrence fills amonumental position.
Chapter 2 focuses on Lawrence’s metaphysic, which is the centre of the theoretical possibilities thatthe writers “after D. H. Lawrence” find in his fictional writings, as well as in various essays. Lawrence’s
metaphysic manifests itself as his unique dualisms and the deconstruction of them. Chapter 2 examines
the dualism and its deconstruction as embodied in “The Prussian Officer,” and also discusses the theme ofviolence in this story in relation to the dualism of life and death. Taking into consideration contemporaryintertextuality, Lawrence’s dualism resonates with Freud’s speculative conception of life instinct anddeath instinct and with their deconstructive vicissitudes. Lawrence’s critique of violence drove him towrite his most problematic novel, The Plumed Serpent. This novel addresses the fundamental problems ofviolence and human relationships in confrontation with the eruption of violence in the form of the FirstWorld War, the Anglo-Irish War, the political turmoil in Mexico, and the rise of fascism in Italy andGermany. Lawrence’s metaphysic, as is embodied in the works which this chapter examines, has great
influence upon New Left writers, who seek for, to use Stuart Hall’s words, “new ways of looking at, newways of speaking together about” various issues.
Chapter 3 focuses on the references and allusions to Lawrence and his works in Fowles’s 1977
novel Daniel Martin, and attempts to throw new light on Lawrence’s writings as well as on Fowles’s
novel. In this novel, the references to Lawrence are related to the problem of representation andhistoricity. Lawrence examines not only the linguistic or semiotic aspect of representation but also its
political aspect. Since the linguistic or semiotic aspect is concerned with the arbitrariness of theconnection between a sign and the signified, the context of the connection assumes significance when
meaning is drawn out of the connection. Historicity is part and parcel of the context. Lawrence critically2regards representation that is unaware of its arbitrariness and its context. His insight into representation isshared with Fowles, and impels the latter to articulate what constitutes the context but is difficult to be
described per se; it is “feeling,” which is also one of the most important keywords in Williams’s works.
Although the relation or even the intertextual relation between Fowles and Williams has rarely beenmentioned, the link between them will thus be made evident in the course of our argument.
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 deal with the works of the writers “after D. H. Lawrence,” namely, Williams,Lessing, and Fowles, respectively. Chapter 4 elucidates the importance of literary criticism inherited fromthe tradition of practical criticism for the formation and development of Williams’s wide-range views on
culture and society. His first published book, Reading and Criticism, has great significance in reference tothe provenance of Williams’s method of cultural materialism as well as to literary criticism, and yet little
attention has been paid to this small but seminal work. By fundamentally reconsidering the way to read
literary works, Williams tries to surpass the limits of the literary criticism of his previous generation, suchas Leavis and Eliot. Williams’s thorough, close reading brings into sharp relief the interrelation of the actof reading with the understanding and creation of culture. In the time of the democratization of literature,Williams’s literary criticism presents a way of expanding the scope of culture to the extent that “culture isordinary.”
Chapter 5 deals with her most famous metafictional novel, published in 1962. As Margaret Drabble
points out, “Lessing’s oeuvre takes over where Lawrence’s left off,” and “She owes a great deal [. . .] toLawrence” (xii). Lessing was a great admirer of Lawrence and inherited a lot from him. Moreover, she
was an important element in the rise of the New Left (she was a member of the editorial board of the New
Left Review and a friend of E. P. Thompson). Her commitment to the Left in the 1950s is reflected in The
Golden Notebook. Chapter 5, then, attempts to show how the form of the novel embodies its protagonist’srelation and commitment to the reality of the times as praxis. Attention is given to both the fragmented
state of the text and the conflict between fragmentation and integrity from which the protagonist as anovelist suffers throughout the novel. Through her literary praxis, the protagonist acknowledges that
language does not merely reflect reality but also creates it, and that the relations between subjects, objects,and the world constitute a text. Lessing attempts to give the ideological “feel” of those years, and thus thetheme of “feeling” is foregrounded as in the case of Williams’s “structure of feeling” or the “feeling”
expressed in Daniel Martin.
Chapter 6 revisits Fowles’s novel to elucidate how Fowles’s critical insight into language, as will
have been partly observed in Chapter 3, embodies itself in the form of metafiction by way of theallegorical figuration of ghosts woven into the allegorical narrative about reading and writing. In thisself-reflexive novel, Daniel attempts to write an autobiographical novel; to write about himself is to read,interpret, and (re)create his own life. His critical consciousness of language and his struggle with writing
a novel are thus linked with Williams’s formulation that reading is creating. This elaborate metafiction istherefore an embodiment of the praxis of radically reconsidering the relationships between reading andwriting subject, the world, and language. This reconsideration leads those with a critical consciousness of3

language to reconsider what the reading and writing subject is. Faced with the difficulty and impossibilityof representation due to the slippery and arbitrary nature of language, the subject ought to undertake theethical task of reading and writing even though the conventional image of self is shattered in such asevere “study of relationships,” and the subject is made to acknowledge that the subject him/herself is noother than an embodiment of the “relationships” connected to other subjects and the world by the mediumof language.

4