New historical and cultural criticism are often considered together because they share many similarities, but they are in fact distinct domains of critical theory.

New Historicism

Tyson begins by contrasting “traditional” historians and “new historicists.” Traditional historians analyze history to find out what happened and why, whereas new historicists analyze how history is interpreted and the ideologies behind those interpretations. 

Traditional historians believe that events have a “linear, causal relationship” and that the arc of human history is progressive, meaning that time flows in one direction, that events are linked, and that the human condition improves over time (242). They argue that this sequence of events can be studied objectively. In contrast, new historicists argue that the study of history is inherently subjective. Further, history is highly complex and nonlinear, and causation is difficult to determine because people, events, and cultural products are mutually constitutive, e.g., people both shape and are shaped by culture. “Subjectivity” is the term given to describe how people navigate the interaction between individual desire and societal norms.

New historicists are heavily influenced by French theorist Michel Foucault’s theories about power. He argued that power “circulates” throughout society through exchanges of goods, people, and ideas.