{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028552456839309428, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006640106241699867, 'mean_word_length': 5.757847533632287, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Crises of Relationship: Developing Relational Models for the Study of the American Renaissance

If studies of the American Renaissance have been haunted, until very recently, by the pervasive presence of an "Emerson-ghost," signs of that haunting persist in the critical replication of Emerson's possessive investment in individualism. Mystifying the social and ideological origins of the self, EmersonÂ—described by Harold Bloom as our "brave ghostly father" 'Â—repressed the necessities of life in favor of his vision of liberatory power. But perhaps the greatest blind spot in Emerson's own theory of selfhood was the occluded recognition that disseminating his paradigm of personal independence depended on readers and listeners imitating the example of his "exemplary" persona, which was predicated upon the assumption that "the individual can speak for the universal" and, hence, for all others.2 By focusing on moments of solitary insight in his writing, Emerson mystified the intersubjective aspects of the rhetorical relationship between his authoritative persona and members of his audience. According to Joyce Warren, similar omissions have characterized canonical American literature, which has, "for the most part, focused on the individual," especially a "universalized" individual who is "white and male." Reading beyond Emerson, we need to reconstruct what disappears in the Emersonian rhetorical modelÂ—"a community of interpersonal relationships" that Warren locates at the center of nine