New Historicism is a theory applied to literature that suggests literature must be studied and interpreted within the context of both the history of the author and the history of the critic. The theory arose in the 1980s, and with Stephen Greenblatt as its main proponent, became quite popular in the 1990s. Unlike previous historical criticism, which limited itself to simply demonstrating how a work was reflective of its time, New Historicism evaluates how the work is influenced by the time in which it was produced. It also examines the social sphere in which the author moved, the psychological background of the author, the books and theories that may have influenced the author, and any other factors which influenced the work of art. All work is biased.

In addition, New Historicism acknowledges that any criticism of a work is necessarily tinged with the critic’s beliefs, social structure, and so on. Most New Historicists may begin a critical reading of a novel by explaining themselves, their backgrounds, and their prejudices. Both the work and the reader are corrupted by everything that has influenced them. New Historicism thus represents a significant change from previous critical theories like New Criticism, because its main focus is to look at things outside of the work, instead of reading the text as a thing apart from the author.

Those practicing New Historicism draw from other forms of criticism, particularly the writings of Michel Foucault, who may be more properly termed a psychological critic. Marxist criticism is also a progenitor of New Historicism.

In regards to the relationship between Marxism and New Historicism, it can be said that the New Historicist often looks for ways in which populations are marginalized through a literary work. For example, a Jane Austen novel is a novel confined to a very limited sphere of society, namely the landed gentry. While the New Historicist may praise the novel, he or she will also duly note that the servant class is completely marginalized in Austen’s work. Austen asserts the pre-eminence of the landed gentry above any other class of society, and is quite critical of those who marry “beneath” their social status.

The critic might then evaluate why Austen would display this prejudice, giving information about her background, the books she had read, events in her life that may have influenced her, and her own choices in regards to marriage. Austen is, in a way, against her own work, which suggests power may be purchased through good marriages, since Austen never married. In fact, Austen’s life stands outside her own espoused theories in literature, because she was a female novelist, gaining power through her work rather than through marriage.

One practicing New Historicism would note such a dichotomy. The fact that Austen wrote about a society to which she only marginally belonged can enhance the reading of her work. It might also help make sense of her broad critiques of “civilized” society.

Criticisms of this literary theory are mostly levied by those who still practice New Criticism, as well as those who make up the Post-Modernist critics, such as Deconstructionists. The New Critic argues that literature should be read as a self contained work without considering influence. Deconstructionists seem largely annoyed that New Historicists claim to be the only ones who admit that all texts, including their own interpretations, are biased.