Content area
Full Text
Tony C. brown. The Primitive, the Aesthetic, and the Savage: An Enlightenment Problematic. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. xxii + 282 pages. $82.50.
Reviewed by Royce L. Best
Tony C. brown's study of eighteenth-century aesthetics does not, as many studies do, focus on objects of aestheticization, nor does it unhesitatingly assume that the aesthetic is itself a stable or settled human experience. rather, brown takes a progressive methodological stance that aims to unite both historical and theoretical approaches to the subject. Taking a non-national approach, brown examines the difficulties that english, German, and French writers have with thinking the New world in the eighteenth century; a century that "put particular pressure on european modes of understanding the human's relation to itself and to the world " (xii). The result is a smart insight into the "clear and confused" (47) formulation of knowledge that brown argues constitutes eighteenth-century aesthetic theory.
While The Primitive, the Aesthetic, and the Savage: An Enlightenment Problematic is focused on a particular subject, eighteenth-century aesthetics, brown's background in critical theory, philosophy, and comparative literature allows him to situate his study among broader ideas that were developing in the eighteenth century, such as the field of anthropology and the formulation of the concept of europe itself. in part 1, brown articulates his theory of "the enlightenment problematic," which he believes springs from the eighteenth-century notion of the primitive, which is simultaneously "necessary and exceedingly difficult to think" (xii). For brown, the difficulty that eighteenth-century aesthetic theorists face in their attempts to think the primitive causes a loss of confidence in their own ability to understand their place as humans in relation to the world. This loss of confidence articulates a sense of self for europeans, which their encounters with the "New world" both maintained and perturbed.
Brown uses a dual historicist and theoretical approach because of his concern over the "universal sovereignty" (x) that history is often accorded. brown's study can therefore be situated among recent critical conversations about these two approaches. of late, both positions have been under fire. Stephen best and Sharon Marcus critique the prevalence of psychoanalysis and Marxism as "metalanguages" in which "the most interesting aspect of a text is what it represses" (3), and Allen Dunn...