theory's empire: the intro

Our book does not propose a return to an ideal past (nonexistent, in any case) of literary studies. Nor do we support a retrogressive or exclusivist view of a canon, classics, traditions, or conventions (the predictable charges hurled against critics of Theory). p. 7

Soon after the above, the introduction's authors provide a brief history leading to the development of Literary Theory.

The authors of the Introduction began graduate school in literature in the late 60s. A long list of names that became authors of note in the field are listed -- all on p. 7. The result was that

"Power," "hegemony," "the Other," "the mirror stage," "deferred meaning," "the logic of late capitalism," and similar terms and phrases -- by then inseparable from the authority of Theory -- turned into the preeminent themes for exploration in and through literary texts.

It's difficult to tell from this paragraph where the authors "get off" the train of critical theory. Is it at Gramsci, Brecht, Lukacs, Adorno? The sociological approach to theory? Are the terms they put in quotation marks representative of what they reject? The same problem of a lack of clarity as to where they "draw the line" is present in the next paragraph.

At the same time, a feminist perspective became indispensable for literary scholars, startingh with the work of such figures as Kate Millet and Shulamith Firestone and passing through French feminist critics, mainly Kristeva, Cixous, and Irigaray.

Not at all clear what their view is of these figures. Also not clear if they agree that 'a feminist perspective became indispensable for literary scholars,' or in what sense they agree with it. Is it true that this perspective became indispensable, but regrettable? Or are they saying that, yes, it really is true that the feminist perspective is indispensable? They are hedging their bets, as the already quoted bit from the top of the page also indicates: "Our book does not propose a return to an ideal past (nonexistent, in any case) . . . "

The cat emerges at least a little bit out of the bag on p. 8:

In the 1970s and well into the 1980s, reception aesthetics, narratology, criticaal theory . . . postcolonialism, and an all-encompassing preference for political approaches (grounded in the theorists' own presumptively correct opinions) became the norm. Though not often cohering with an accelerating postmodermist rhetoric that saw the whole world as a "text," these approaches devolved into specializations and subfields such as subaltern studies, cultural studies, and, more recently, queer theory -- all of which have spread beyond the area of literature -- as is only to be expected once almost everything has been reconcieved as a "text."
     What theorists of all these persuasions have in common, whatever their individual differences, is a decisive turning away from literature as literature and an eagerness to transmorgify it into a cultural artifact . . .

No but wait! I thought the authors weren't interested in proposing "a return to an ideal past," which, they say is "nonexistent" anyway. But if there is no ideal past, how is it possible to turn away from literature as literature? On page 13 they repeat this strange idea: "Our chief aim is to provide students and interested readers with effective intellectual tools to help them redeem the study of literature as an activity worth pursuing in its own right." But what does it mean to treat literature "as" literature? Would treating literature as literature lead to the rejection of the Marxist, sociological, approaches? Every one of the names mentioned from pages 7-8? What approach to literature would result? On p. 14 the authors, predictably, praise themselves and the authors in their volume:

All share an affection for literature, a delight in the pleasure it brings, a respect for its ability to give memorable expression to the vast variety of human experience, and a keen sense that we must not fail in our duty to convey it unimpaired to future generations.

But if literature can "give memorable expression to the vast variety of human experience," doesn't that open the door to queer theory, and all the other terms employed by the authors as cues, as winks to a reader about the object of attack?

The ambiguity continues down the page.

The results of these developments have been unfortunate in many ways. As intellectual claims that at one time seemed new and exciting became ossified -- reduced to the now-predictable categories of race, class, gender, and, later, sexuality -- criticism and theory turned endlessly repetitive and otiose.

Oh those predictable categories of race, class, gender, and sexuality! The view of the authors, I take it, is that there is too much focus on these predictable topics. And, regardless of quantity, they're just so, I don't know, predictable.

The Introduction is filled with generalizations that are impossible to verify or disprove. For instance, the authors participated in some academic searches.

We see applicant after applicant present dossiers, dissertations, and job talks that are interchangeable and entirely predictable (in the last few years preferred themes have been the "construction of national identity," "globalization," "epistemic violence," and various versions of "border" crossings, while "transgressive sexuality," has remained in favor only by extending its boundaries to include ever new identity groups it purports to speak for and to). p. 11

As we can see, more problems with predictability. But we can also see the authors walking a tightwire. I mean, are they really saying that "the construction of national identity" or "globalization" are unacceptable topics? The tightwire is made up of the following: we, the authors, can't get away with directly stating that 'gender,' for instance, is an inappropriate lens for analyzing literature. And it is another sign of the beneficial effects of political correctness that even these authors pull back from a direct assault. But the reader, they hope, can be counted on to read between the lines and 'to understand' that when queer theory, globalization, and sexuality are mentioned, the inevitable image that appears in their mind is indeed the object of this volume's attack.