LITERARY THEORY IN THE

UNIVERSITY: A SURVEY
UTERARY 1'HE0RY IN "l'HE UNIVtltSI'r\' : A SURVtY 4ll

HE following survey was unde rtake n dur·ing 1982. An attempt

T was made to obtain re pi-t:scntarive sratemenls from scholars in

rhis co untry, Great Brirain, and Europe regarding the reach-
ing and writing of literary thcory at the present time. T hc survey
seemed rhe rnost appropriatc way lO discovcr how the.)l'ists feel about
their own subjcct and what thcy and their students 1hink are its
shortcomings and prospects.
The answcr·s given bclow are presen1ed in alphabclical order. Sub-
sequem issucs will conrain essays pertine nt lo the sur·vcy.
Thc thrce qucstions of thc survey wcre:
I. Whar ought to bc the aims and functio nsof lirerary rheory at thc
prcscnl time?
2. What prnctical conseq uc nccs h as theory had in your tcaching o f
lir.ernlure and in your writing of criticisrn?
3. What do you consider thc sho rrcnrnings of l.heory. if any, in
grad uare educatio n?
T>I E ED11'0 R

David Blcich. Indiana Univc r-sity:

I. l unders1and 1hc traditional disciplines o f lnnguagc and lirera-
ture 10 bc the Study of literar-y rcxts, gcnrcs. histo r·y. and mcanings; I
think li1e rary thcor·y lOday ought to bc concerned wi1h lhe purposcs,
reasons, presupposi1ions, and principies associatcd with rhc sturly of
la nguage and litcrarur·e.
Litenory rhcory shou ld compare rcceivcd concepts of languagc and
lireraturc with new conccprs. sought conccp1s, and conccpts frorn
related disciplines such as philosophy , history, a nd sociolinguistics.
and others, including lhe scicnccs. Thcorists sho uld promote ex·
cha ngc bctween orthodox srude rtrs o f language and lire rature and
other students who ask why thcsc subjccts e xist and why rhcy are
imponant; in addition, rheorists should airn to disdosc cho ices within
rradirio nal subjecl categor·ies, so that c hangc , growth, and dc velop-
ment bccome more anticipated elcmenL~ in an y inquiry.
Litcrar·y theory should contribute to lhe changing of social anel
profcssional institutions such as the public lecrure, the <.'OnvenLion
presentation , rhe classroom, and the processes o f re nure and promo-
tion. Theoretical work ought to sho'v how and why no one dass of
scholus, and no one subject (including rheory} is self-justifying,
self·explanatory, and self-sustaining. Theorists should cornmit
412 NEW LITERAR\' IUSTOrtY

themselves to disciplining imellectual change. and 10 lhe princi-

pled reappropriation of ideas which seem nol to change. Finally.
literary theory ought to promote active a'•areness of each person's
mcmbcrship in severa! imellcctual, cultut·al, and professional com-
munilics a1 once, 10 disclosc ou r responsibililies to 1hese communities.
and to teach us 10 form new communities when needed.
2. The emergence o f literary theo•'Y as a working curricular genre
in my university has had severa! importam consequences in which I
have bcen involved. (a) An interdisciplinat')' formal minor-a pro·
gram of courses-has bcen established on both undergraduate and
graduate leveis; courses from other lilerawre departments and other
humanities deparrmenls are includcd. (b) Severa! facu lty and
sludent-faculty groups have bcgun 10 mcct rcgularly (monthly, usu-
ally) tO Sludy new work in litcrary theory, and to share one another's
works, either published or in progress. (c) Annual theO•')' conferences
have been encouraged and supported by the univet·sity to enhance
familiarity in this community with thc work o f other thcorists. (d) The
teaching and 1he study of writing has begun to include, in add ition to
composition theory. theoretical work in language, cognilion, and lit·
erature.
My work has moved toward expcrimcnting with different class-
room formatS, different means of studying practical language, liter-
ary response, and criticai judgmenrs, and my published writing has
begun reporting on these developments. I have tried to create class-
room procedures and forms of thought that combine theoretical,
criticai, and practical aspects of language and literary inquiry, in
freshman, undergraduate, and graduate courses. I •·eport on these
developments regularly in local forums, study groups, and confer-
cnccs. Study in theory has suggested certain ideas for these experi-
ments and makes them comprehensible when lreport thcm in public.
3. Theoretical concerns cause problems when they prcsent them-
selves as self-sufficient and autonomous. Some schools of theory seem
to call on others to "apply" them, and graduate students are often
eager for such tasks; some theories presem themselves as "beautiful,"
as Eli?.abeth Bruss has no1cd. and graduate students are cager to
admire them. However, either to "apply" o•· admire theory implies tha1
it has already been perceived as an essentially separate domain, e.g ..
"lct us see if we can now 'use' allthe theory we know," which suggcsts
that social. professional, and practical consequences werc not a con-
cern of the theories to begin with. This feature o f theory is a danger
because it reinforces the historie stet·eotype of intellectual eflort as
aimless and usclcss.
Some forms of theory encourage apprentice thinkers to question,
negate, or "resist" the assertions that some havc risked. There is a
''trope o f negation" which makes itS task to deny or invert affirmativc
proposals, regardlcss of how tentatively they are presented. Such
theories have already decided what it is that cannot be decided. For·
mulaic negation, while often stimulating and provocative, ultimately
suggests that thinking is beuer than, and separate from, acting, rathcr
than that theory and social initiative are mutually responsible tO onc
another.
Theory ought to show that questioning alo ne. or "resisting" alone,
or cven understanding or textual mastery alone are inadequatc; oon-
sequences among real social groups (students, professors, deans. or
politicians o r entrepreneurs, for that matter) should be anticipated,
sought, and tested by theorists. Ideas which begin and end as thcorics
reducc the value of theory.

Morton W. Bloomficld. Harvard University:

I. I think it is vcry importam that, after the excitement of New
Criticism (in itS thcoretical aspccts), structm·alism and various post·
structuralisms (reader response or reception esthetics, social context,
and Derridian deconstruction), we try not tO lose our hcads on the
next "wave." After ali, literary theory has always occupicd the minds
of those who are interested in literature (from at least the time of
Aristotle) and is going tO continue for a lo ng time to interest readers,
critks, and tcachcrs of literature. lt is true that it has received special
attention and has becorne fashionable in Wcstcrn Europe and
America in the past twenty-odd ycars. That wavc will subside, but it
will by no mcans die. lt would be hdpful if we realize this fact and the
wide-ranging scope ofliterary theorizing. 1t would be bettcr for ali of
us if we did not leap from o ne bandwagon to another, but recognizcd
the multiplicity and complexity o f our subject. I do not expect any
suggestion for an eclectic approach to be accepted.
2. The present widespread interest in theory has made me aware
of many aspects of literature which I either did not kno"' or did not
concentrate on. I can't say that is h as improvcd my teaching o r writing
of criticism, although I thin k it has. lt makes one ask differem and
new questions of the literature one reads or teaches. It enrichcs ou r
subject and helps to create and maintain the excitemem that makes
literature such a sign ificam and enthralling subject.
3. A cena in amount of thcorizing will come into graduate classes
no mauer what we think. I also think a graduate student in literature
should specifically study a fcw courses devoted to theory, but J do not
think it should replace the study of literary works and to some ex tem
literary history as the centers of graduate education. The major
shortcoming of theot·y is its tendency to minimize the particular and
to overemphasize the general. Both are necessary. The study of liter-
awrc must not be buried in philosophy and philosophical reasoning,
although it must not neglect it. A student without some awareness of
lit.erary theory would be seriously handicapped; one who knows only
individual literary works and/or literary history is inadequately pre-
pared to be a good teacher of literature.
Literary the0'1' at present tends to be narrowly focused . No matter
how strongly we subscribe to one school or another, we must allow ou r
students to experience some of the other theories. The Marxists
should havc thci.r day, but they must allow for intrinsic factors in the
understanding of literature. The deconstruclionists, who are strongly
imbued with the Romantic spirit, must also allow Lhe classicists to have
their say. Not allliterature is Rousseauist, some o f it is Shakespearean.
Psychologizing has its limits.

jim Springer Borck. Louisiana State University:

I. Thc purpose of any criticai methodology ought to be to keep the
languagc of the tribe "currem" and "alive," as well as to display the
variety (variety here meaning the artistic generosity offered by the
text) of the tex.L undcr examination.
2. The praclical consequenccs of working within a specific criticai
methodology have been reminders of rigorous discipline; to be aware
of other methods, and to acknowkdge them in my own writings,
CJ·eates a fairness of approach. Though I am made vet·y uneasy by
some o f the permutations of structura.lism, poststructuralism. decon-
structionism, et ai., and •·egard myself prirnarily as a historical con-
textualist, I find de Man, Derrida, and lser (to cite a few) ali il-
luminating when "rcading" a text. My hcan, howcvcr, still remains
with Wimsatt and R. S. Cranc.
3. Shortcomings of theory as now taught: both that it is taughttoo
littlc and too much, that graduatc students are nm exposed to enough
criticai theory and its irnportance, and that they tend to misuse theory
by way of avoiding reading the text. I also think that the impact of
computer technology hasn't been evaluated in terrns of the study of
literary texts-not just cornpilation of bibliographies and concor-
dances-but questions about the effect of having rnachines "read"
texts, the cxciting work with artificial intelligences, and the humanistic
evaluative computcr languagcs such as PU I.

Leo Braudy, Johns Hopkins University:

I. The English lnstitute this year was a fascinating gloss on your
first question. Thcrc, for the first time in a while, thc modc secrncd
ímegratíve ralher 1han confromational. Whether the subjecl was Pope
or Marxísl theory, thcre was an opennes.~ to othcr ideas thall enjoycd
very mucb. (On the o1her side would be S1anley Fish, who lhought it
smacked of "liberal pluralísm.") It is just in this area 1hat I think
literary critícism ought to go. Much bas becn exposed and dcbated .
NO"' r think ít's time lO see what is useful and what isn't. Then, as in so
many other disciplinary subfields, thcre will be theory that everyonc
ought to havc at lcast a nodding acquaintance with (likc Chaucer or
Donne), and theory t hat o nly the specialist will be aware of or ín-
terested in (like Hcnryson or Hall).
2. In m)' own 1eaching, the existence of 1heory, not necessarily its
specific preachings o r perspectives, has pressed me to sharpen ideas
and pcrspcctives that might othe rwise be unexamin ed. But in
grad uate cducation lthink ittoo often supplics a false rcfugc for the
studem looking for defenscs •·athcr than cxpansion. T hat is o ne rca-
son why r like the situation at the English lnstitute so much. For a
long time I have becn turned off equally by the more extreme claims
o f both the 1 rendy and the troglodyte. Now it seems that a period o f
d ynamíc synthesis is in prospect. Maybe it is liberal pluralism (i f that
can be separated from wishy-washy). But r likc it anyhow.

Ten')' Eagleton, Wadham College, Oxford, England:

I . One aim of literary theory today should be to offer studems the
conceptual means 10 connect lilerary studies to other. arguably more
historically and politically important concerns. Another aim is to offer
them the means to read lite•·ary texts in ways unacccptable to the
ruling idcologics. Thc former aim is pcrhaps largcly confined to
places of higher educatio n; the latter is one which literary theorists
should be trying to develop in cooperation with those who tcach lit-
erature in schools.
2. One of the main practical consequences of my using theory in
tcaching has been to create problems for students reading English
literaturc within a dccply traditionalíst univcrsity. Students tcnd to
expe rience the gap between the approaches institutionally demanded
of them, and lhe new me1hods 10 which they are inu·oduced, as both
illuminating and frustrating. Some disown the new methods, but
perhaps in the awarcness that they are rejecting something of poten-
tial value; olhers hive them off from their bread-and-butter work and
seule for a semischizoid existence; a minority campaign and organize.
a.~ at present in Oxford, to radically o verhaul the academic systcm .
The maín effcct of my int roducing theory imo my writing has been
some rather hostile reviews.
3. Literary lheory is in danger of becoming quaranlined within
416 NEW Ll'fERARY HIS'rO RY

lite rary studies as an esote ric arca of its own, reputcdly akin in difll-
cuhy to n uclear physics. 1t provides a stimulating but speculative en-
dave of t rsatz radicalism for teachers and stud ents caught in a period
ofrelative political d eadlock in thc advanccd capitalist societies. h can
escape suc h confines o nly by practical inte rve ntio ns within the acad-
e my into what is taught the re, how, and why.

J ohn M. Ellis, Un ivc rsity of California, Santa Cruz:

I. The aims and functio n o f litc rary theory should be d ose to tho se
o f theor-y in most lleld s: the invesligatio o and d a rillcatio n o f thc most
gene ra l questions in the lleld , i.e., those dealing with the aims o f the
field, thc nanrre of its results, thc appropriate ness o f competing mcth-
odologics. Bccause thc central questions in theory are mostly wcll
knowrr alrcady, progrcss irr theory is made by patie nt, careful analy·
sis o f ccmcepts anel argume nts. accura tely formulated d istinctio ns, o r·
rcexaminacio n o f familiar Iines o f argumc nt to scc if thcir logic con·
ceais some fundame ntal hiddc n confusio n. T he charactcr of c riticai
theory is no t (or should no t be) dazzling o r "cxciting'' (exccpt in the
sense that 1111)' impor·tant nc w theorctical idca o•· ac•gumc nt is cxcicing
i f it is im portam); above ali. its strcngth must lie in accur':lcy a nd pt·e-
cision o f fo rmulatio n. Only thus e<m pr'Ogrcss be rnade in the •·eex-
arnination o f the theorc tical issucs wh ich ar·ise in litc rnrr criticisrn.
2. My own criticism has always becn g uieled by thc annlysis I ha ve
made o f the thco rctical issues in criticisrn . T hc prio rities that l havc
ac·gucd for in c:•·iticism in my Tile Tile~ny of Litert•ry Critici.mr havc becn
those at wo rk in my Nurrfltiorr iu tire Gemwu Nwtlla a nd two books o n
Kleist; the criticai proccdures of t hese vo lumes o f cc·iticism have bee n
thc procedu rcs argucd fo r in the theore tical boo k; t he n<tturc o f thc
inte r·pr·etatio ns arrived at is. I a m ce11ain. ver·y much part of the view
of criticism from which they originatc. My teaching of literat.ure is
sirnilarl y vcry much a part o f the same complex.
3. T hc shortcornings o f t heory in gradua tc education at prcscnt
follow fro m the vicw o f the valuc o f thcory in paragraph I above. At
thc mo ment, theory is a mauer o ffads anel fashion, a nd the e motional
basis of its popula rity sccms to be more a questio n o f c nthusiasms,
fashio nable ness, leelings o f superio rity over the common herd, ex-
cite me m and inspiratio n, anel gro up celebr·atio ns o f tribal solidarity
and po"•e r. The accepced style o ftheoretical inquiry is the sple ndo r o f
g randiosc vag ueness, rather than the clat·ity required for any gerruine
theore tical inquiry. Ali o f this is, in fact, a travesty anel dege ne ration
of what theory ought to be. And in this d imate fa r 100 many are ve ry
poorly informeel about the real complexity oftheory oflanguage and
LITERARY THEORY I N THE UN'JVERSITV: A S U ~Vt:Y 417

literalure thal existcd before Dcrrida, for example; graduale studenls

are taugh110 see his auack on the metaphysics o f presence as a great
breakthro ugh and innovation, and neither they nor the faculty who
have them read Derrida seem 10 have any idea how many and how
complex are existing writings which have auacked essentially 1ha1 idea
in mo re logically prolound ways. In short, theory now in graduate
education is something of a scandal.

Raymond Fedcrman, State University oi' New Yo rk at Buffalo:

I. Vou ask, wh a1 o ught to be thc aims and functions of li1era•·y
thcory ai the prescnt time? Fo r me, above ali, to reassertthe value o f
literature, 10 au1hentica1e i1s pr-esence, 10 aflirm i1s existence in o u•·
cul1ure as o ne o f t he mos1 imponant of human activi1ies.
AI a time when literature (especiall y in o ur retrogressivc anti·
intcllcctual society) sccrns to havc lostlts credibili1y and evcn its func·
tio nalit y; at a time when anythiug passe~ fo r literaturc in t he super·
markets of books, when cookbooks, comic books, pscudoscicntil1c
manuais, cclebrity biographies written by ghost writcrs, gothic noveis,
spy noveis, harlettuin romances, and so forth, at·c confused with litcr-
aturc; at a time whcn, in o rder to be. literaturc must bc approved
by rcvicws in the official mercantilc prcss (Titt Ntw Yorlt Time.• Book
Review, o r such dcprcssing publicatio ns}, thcn the role of liteo·ary
thcory (airns and functions, if you pt·efer} is tO makc thc distinction,
to mar·k the d iffer·encc bctween boo ks nnd nonboo ks. Jn othcr words.
literary theory, fo r me, should not o nly havc an intellcctual •·espo n-
sibility to aniculate whatlitcraturc is or is not, whcre it has bcen and
wherc it is going, bu1 sho uld also havc a politir.al r·csponsibility 10 ex-
pose and dcnounce the imposw•·e, thc fl'3ud o f wha1 prctends 10 be
literaturc.
2. Vo u ask, what practical conscqucnccs has thcory had in yo ur
tcaching oi' liteo'ature and in your wriling of criticism? I am tempted
to say no ne, though that wo uld be unfair. As a fiction •Hitet· (one
whose wo rk has bcen labcled experimental) who tcaches li1cra1ure out
oi' ncccssit y, and occasion ally writes criticism, il secms 10 me lhat one
canno t se paratc litcrature (thc text} fro m thcory. I conside•· my work
(and that ofmy contempo raries) to contain its own thcory. Thcrefore,
when lteach literary texts , I do not deal only with litcrariness but also
with the theoretical aspects ofthe texts. In fact, ali works of literature
contain their own theoretical dimensions. Old-fashioned (tradition al)
criticism igno red 1his aspect of litcrature. Ncw literary thcory
pc rhaps overcmphasizes thal aspcct 100 much, to the point of only
seeking the theoretical in a litet'ary tcxt. In other words, too often
literar-y theory abandons lilerature. Moreover, and this seems more
serio us for me. lilerary 1heory does no1 seem able 10 deal wi1h con·
1emporar-y 1exts (experimental ones especially). Perhaps 1his is l>ecause
these lexls bcing themselves theorctical, articulating within lhem·
selvcs their own theor·y, in a way exdude lhe theoretician. I am not
sure I have Slated this too clearly, bul I do deplore thc fact that so little
auention is given to lhe contcmporar-y text in literary theory.
3. Vou ask, what do you consider rhe shoncomings of thcory, if
any, in gradua te educat io n? Since a gradua te program, by necessity, is
limited 10 a cenain number of courses (credits o r unils) the time
devo1ed to litcrary theory is 1aken away from reading and studying
literature. And when literary 1heor·y takes over complctcly, as is Lhe
case in some graduate programs. then we creale s1range creaturcs
with a huge head but no body who spcak a ralher cul'ious jargon
which they lhemselves do no1 al,vays underslancl. There must be a
way for literary 1heor·y and literatu re to find a happy balance, ajoyful
union in o ur grad uate programs. T o be quite blunt, I fecl 1hat whcr-
evo:r litcrary thcory takcs ovcr· thc study of li1crawr·e, it crcates a kind
o f anxicty in o ur· swdcms.

Stan ley fish . .Johns Hopkins University:

I . I don'1 think lherary 1hcory has aims and functions, exccpt that
it is nn auernpt to give a gencr·al accoum o f what we do; it also seiS its
own qucstions and problcms, and 1hcrcfore at any OllC time o nc ai·
rcady knows its ai rns and functions .
2. My teac hing of litera1ure has becn rnarkcdly affcctc:d by 1hcory
siuce I find mysclf comínually r·eading litcrar·y texts as 1hemati1,11ions
o f the 1heoretical poshion I hap1>en to hold . T his is no doubtlrue o f
evcryone, bu1 pi'Obably more self-consciously so of those who are
thernsclves theoris1s.
3. The fact tha1 ncither 1hcory no r· 1hc histor-y o f cl'iticism is taugh1
as a serious su~ject in most graduate dcpar·unents is, I think, a gr·eal
and all·encompassing sho rlcoming.

Alas1air fowler. University of Edinburgh, Scotland:

I. I think that liter-ary theory should now increasingly move away
from issues of structuralism and o f deconslruction. to engage again
in ques1ions o f descriplion or preliminary consu·uc1ion. And lherc
should bc more auemion to queslions of the ontology o f the work,
less aiJOul the ontology of lilerature. lt seems 10 me strik.ing how the
work of Ingarden, for examplc, has had so li11le continuation. Then,
1hc relation of diachronic and synchro nic criticism nccds 10 bc furthcr·
exam ined.
 2. I feelthat too much of my time has to go in rebuuingopinions of
theorists who seem to have r·elatively little interest in literature. Much
curr-ent literary theory seems to me a distraction from the subject
itself. In a sense, current literary theory has had liule other bearing on
my own criticism, except for genre theory, which has had a very great
deai.
3. While literary theory is in my view dcleterious at the under·
graduate stage, a small amoun1 may be beneficiai for postgraduate
students-say, half a dozen scminar-s per year. These might have the
effecl of arousing a sense of t he complexity of the subject. But in
general thc early years are so importam in t he task o f acquir·ing fa.
miliarity wi1h literature and its hislorical conlext and o f developing a
sense of period, 1hat we cannot afford dissipating them on literary
theory. Specific shorlcomings i.nclude the following: il lends spedous
support to the neglect of diachronic study: itlends support to nards-
sislic lendencies of criticism, already slrong a1 that age; it provides a
means of avoiding the challenge presented by lradition; and il avoids
lhe challenges o f verifica1ion and of possible disproof.

Michel Glowinski, l ns1i1u1e of Literary Research, Warsaw, Poland:

I. I cannot imagine a lilerary sludy which would not accept the
dominan1 position of literary theory. I f there were, such an inade·
quale study would fali victim to i1s own naivelé, would rcmain lrue 10
an unacceptable, irrclcvant, purely referential theory, whereas any
1heory dealing with the work. of art, it.• process of development and
expression, is always relevam lO o ur ac1ions. I see the main objectives
of literary tbeory as 1hreefold: (a) 1t creates an apparatus that can
explain o r describe the literary work, ils poctics, its existence in his·
tory, and its function. lt allows the opening up in literat.ure of those
aspects and events thal were up tO this time neglected or minimized
(for example, lhe problema1ic of the reader and of the principies of
selection). Work.ing with a new vocabulary, literary theory creates the
possibiJity of new insigh1s in to general problems and specific wo•·ks.
(b) Literary theory imegrates findings gleancd from analyses of par-
ticulars and demonstrales that litcrary study need not be a mere dis-
organized collection o f bits o f information on various subjects. Liter·
ary study is now beginning 10 have a syslematic character which has
significant conscquences; namely, il unites concern for· particulars
with a la rger philosophical context. (c) Li1erary theory creatcs an
arena for understanding among scholars and thus performs an im·
portant communicative function. Theorists speak. in varied languages,
but we know the basis of each lang uage, so that even 1hough we may
not agree when dealing wi1h problems, we can at Jeas1 understand one
another.
420 NEW 1..11"tRAR.Y liiS'rORY

2. Thc answcr to this qucstion is cmailcd in lhe prcvious answcr.

Litcrary theory is thc main subject of my inlcrest, and I refcr lO it
even when I am involved in studying particulars, for instance, the
analysis and interpretation of individual works . The main
problems-highly complicated ones-seem tO me lO be the transit.ion
from lheo•·y to interpretation, from poetics tO the description of a
concrete work, and from description of a work. which in its very na-
LUrc is undirccted, lO hermeneutics.
3. In the last few decades, literary theory has played an impor-
tam role, but this has broughl with il a number of uncertaimies. Just
as imerpretalion has limiled ils analysis lO Lhe particular work, and
thus brought about the minimi~ing and disregard of general prob-
lems, so literal')' thcory can lead, in its overemphasis on generality, to
a disregard of problcms thal are specific lO works of art. This dangcr
is eq ually present in teaching and writing; moreover, because of
theory's abstract and schematizing methodology, it creatcs difficulties
in locating lhe individualily of a work. T hc reader of theo retical
works cannot remain unconcerned about this threat. But an aware-
ness of this danger is the method for preventing its occurrence.

Lionel Gossman, Princeton Universily:

I. I don't see that the question can be answered solely with refer-
cnce to literary theory. Like many similar imellecLUal activitics, liter-
ary theor y usually has two aspects. lt is a technical investigation of an
o bject, in this instance the nature of literature-its ontological status,
how it comes to have meaning or create meaning, its •·elation to o ther
aspects of culture, and so on~nd the nature and practice of criticism,
commemary, and interpretation. But in addition, in a more indirect
way, it is- to a far greater extent than many who practice it would
care to admit-a normalive activity, a "political" activity in the widest
sense, conveying values and judgments, establishing legitimacies and
illegitimacies, performing exclusions. In this it is not different, I
think, from other activities in the humanities and social sdences
(phílosophy, theology, some kinds ofsociology at least): i.e., it is a way
of add•·essing, indirectly and within a socialized frarncwork of com-
monly accepted terms, rules, and procedures, fundamental queslions
o f life that can't easily be addressed directly (one cannot look directly
at the sun or al death, as La Rochefoucauld put it}-identity and
community, tradition and individuality, time and death. and so forth .
There is a theorctical discourse which claims to bc untain1ed by such
concerns and which rests its claim to bc theoretical precisely on its
transcendence of ideology. I personally cannot acccpt 1his daim. As
LITf.RARY THEORY IN THE UNIVERSITY: A SURVEY 421

much as I respecL the observance of rules and procedures of argu·

ment and discourse and recognize the need for them, I reject the
positivist illusion ora value-free discourse. I believe ali human dis-
course is freighted with desire and embedded in history. The best
theoretical discourse recognizes its own "materiality," so to speak (i.e.,
thc impossibility of achieving absolute purity) and understands that,
far from constituting a flaw, this inescapable materiality contributes
cssentially to the meaning, interest, and importante of theoretical
discourse. I suspect that thcory which claims tO be above desire and
history almost always functions repressively and terroristically.
2. r have f<>und some theory largely self-comained and or little
relevance LO Lhe study of texLS. This is not intcnded as an adverse
criticism. Theory cao be interesting and stimulating cven if it docsn't
illuminate tcxts-like esthetics. On the other hand, some Lhcory (from
Lu kács to Lotman) has helped me considerably by indicating new
ways o f looking at Lexts, new featu res o f them, new questions to ask. I f
I can speak autobiographically for a moment, my lirst sense of activcly
practicing literary criticism, rather than simply recording impressions
whose origin and status I was uncomfortably unsure of, carne to me
aftct· I d iscovered Lukács in the Cerman depart.m ental library at the
University of Clasgow in 1947. Until thcn I had no idca what I was
doing or should be doing. I can't claim to be a very theoretically
informed or rigorous critic, but to thc extent that I am a critic at ali. it
is through Lukács, and I owe him an cnormous debt. I haven't been
fairhful to Lukács, of course; but r havcn't been unlàithful either. I f
Lukács's work can be considered theory, I owe a great deal to theory.
3. Thcory does u:nd to absorb the cnergics of graduate stttdents.
Many beco me interested in it fo r its own sake, as a kind o f philosophy
or science, rather rhan as a means of enriching and deepening their
undersLanding o f texts. I perso nally do not lind this reprehensible or
regret.table. I myself sometimes wondcr whether my interest in cul-
tural history is at the service of my readings o f texL~ or whethet· it is
itself my true object. My chief reservation concerning theory was
stated in m)• answer to quesLion I. lt is Lhat it may function terr'Oristi·
cally aod repressively, making student readers reject intcrcsting and
suggestive per·ceptions and ideas because they can't be formulated
with sufficient rigor or can't be justilied and validated in terms of a
comprehensive theory, or cven incapacitating them altogether. There
is a whole range o f responses to literary texts, and I think it would be a
pity if we permitted ourselves to ask only those questions which a
coherem Lheory of literature or culture legitimizes. We have tO work
in the dark too. Often such work is the most resourceful kind of work
422 NEW l.ITERARY HISTORY

the critic can do. lt need.n't be stupid or uninformed or unself-<:on-

sctous.

Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Ruhr-Universitãt Bochum, West German y:

I. This is just thc problem I was dealiog with in my forthcoming
essay in New Uterary Hi.slin)' " History of Literature-Fragment of a
Vanished Totalily." I assume lhat lhe meaning normally auributed 10
the (in 1ex1 reference) word literature arose prior lO thal of a tolalily-
concepl of history which has, by this time, become more than prob-
lemalk. The firsl question o f a "literary theory" must be: Does it still
make sense 10 assume lhal there is a coherent objec1 such as "lilera-
lure" on which coheren1 "theories" can be built (,,·hich has lo be
structured by a series of concepts)?
In other words: in the present moment the main task of li1erary
theory should nol be to establish theories of literaturc but to think
aboul the question-what the object (and the role) of our discipline
ought to be, considering that we have now abandoned totality·
concepts of history .
I assume that the result wil111o1 be a new "definition" of the term
literaJure; rather I see two- quite separate-perspectives for the
future of Literatmwi.ssmsclw:ft: (a) the development of "normative"
concepts (proposals) for a nonprolessional, pleasure-orientated use of
texts in a future society in which "working time'' becomes an increas-
ingly unimportant space (compared to "pastime"); (b) the integration
of a particularly high competence of imerprclation and analysis of
1exts (the integration o f the heritage o f l.iteratunvi.ssenschajt) into other
disciplines such as "history'' (especially of "mentalities") and soc:iology
(especially interactionist sociology).
2. As I do not consider "literary theory" one part of LiteraJurwis-
senschaft but rather its "philosophy," 1here is, on one hand-ideally
speaking-no writing that I publish and no course I teach which is no1
in a deductive relation with "literary theory ." On the o1her hand I
write, more and more seldom, purely theo•·etical articles o•· books; I
teach, more and more seldom, purely theoretical seminars.
I pcrsonally prcfer lo use my competence as a historiao of lile•·a-
turc within the field of a "history of menLalilies." profiting- l
hope-from theoretical work (in the sense defined above). There is a
mutual (and productive) relation between this kind of work and my
1heore1ical thinking.
3. Since gradua1e education normally leads to (and should lead to)
professional activily as a "Literaturwissm scluifller" and since lthink 1hat
Lrt'ERARY THEOA:Y I N THE ()NIVF.A:SITY: A SU~VEY 423
lhe fulure (rnaybe lhe survival) of our discipline depends on ils ca-
paciLy LO finda role adequaLe LO new problerns. Lhere cannoL be, in rny
eyes, any graduale teaching without a continuous theoretical discus-
sion. We have at Ruhr-Universitãt Bochum creaLed a Kolloquium
dedicated Lo the Lype o f quesLions described in question I which is
regularly held every two weeks.
I have to emphasize, howcver, LhaL "graduaLc Leaching of liLerary
1heory" (in my sense) can only be realized in a Lruediscussi<rn. Its aim is
LO enable graduaLe studenls (and future colleagues) to Lhink on their
own abou1 lhe kinds of questions I defined above.

Ihab Hassan, University of Wisconsin. Milwaukee :

I. The airn of theory is 10 heighten our awareness of li1erary
knowledge and language. and to organize that awareness in new
hcuristic perspectives. The heightened awarencss of literary knowl-
edge implies the mind's encoumcr wi1h itself under the aspect of
language; it should also lead to gnostic delight. Thc heuristic
perspecLives should airn at wisdorn, right praxis.
2. Though theory hol.ds no priority in my professional life, it has
clearly affected bolh my writing and 1eaching. Thus, for insrance. my
"paracrilicism" reflects postmodern theory and cullurc no less lhan
rny personal sense of Lhe self. And my 1caching has become more
tropic (rhetorical), problematic, comparalive, mullidisciplinary, and
sometimes abstract, the latLer a tendency againsl which I try to guard .
Quite simply, I teach mo•·e literary lheory now than I did lwenty years
ago, a fact that I regard with acule ambivalence.
3. The shoncomings of theory 1oday? Bad prose, rebarbalive jar-
gon, tedious psychomachias. But beyond such lapses and lacks,
graduate education needs to create a nexus of values in literary
s1udies as well as 10 provide a continuai critique of iLself based on
hiswry, ideo!ogy. and spcculative vision.
In the end. though, I must return 10 the instigations of desire. I
take il that no human activity can thrivc without serving some princi-
pie of pleasure as well as will to knowledge and power. Does litcrary
theory appear 10 us now a bridc of wisdom or an iron maiden? Is
criticai discou.-.c a banquct tablc ora verbal wrack? There is pleasure,
of course, in intellectual beauty, gaiety in Lhe mind's strugglc to make
the world ever more conscious, and happiness in 1he play o f language,
which breaks continuously on the sof1 edge of silencc. The cri1ic's
tongue has indeed bccome more strenuous; now it must learn to
"burst Joy's grape against his palate fine."
424 NEW t.JTER.-\R\' HISTOR'i

Güran Hermcrén, Lunds Univer·sitet, Sweden:

I. As to your survey, I li nd it easier to answer question l and
question 3 (since I am not a literary critic). To put it very briefly, 1
thin k that the aim and function of literary thcory ougluto be 10 offer
new dircctio ns and to rcvitalize literary scholarship and literary crit-
icism. So did once the New Critics, and so have the best Marxists,
structuralists and semiotic scholars done. I bclicvc that the potelllial
ofthe contemporary phenomenological and hermeneutic trad ition in
this r·espect is not fully explored.
3. The shortcoming of literary tbeory in g r-.tduate education is
that its relation to literary. criticai , and scholarly practice is not made
explicit. Too often literary theory is discussed separately, and its
rclcvance bccomes, therefore, dirficu lt to grasp. What difference does
it make, in writiog about X, what literary theory 1 use explicitly or
implicitly (take for· grantcd)?

Norman N. Holland, State University of New York at Buffalo:

I. Litcrary theory has, surely, as o ne of its aims, the sheer joy of
play. lt is, quite simply. fun. For another, literary theory serves to
satisfy ou r deepcst curiosity about the literary process, a task that asks
us 10 cngagc in thc most profound exploration of human natu re.
especially ou r own .
For me, these two aims are the samc.
2. As a result of my theoretical concem with the person, 1 have
changed utterly my way of teaching and writing. I uscd to think of
myself an d my students as objcctively analyzing texts. Now 1 ac-
knowledge and emphasize the personal response of studem, tcacher,
and critic. 1 encourage the conscio us use o f one's self, one's identity,
really, as a sensing instrument. I no lo nger think ofcritical writing as a
report oo something other than itself, but as itself a constitutive act
around which we continually focus and create ever new experienccs
of both literature and life .
3. The eruption of theory in the last two decades has brought a
vigorous and refreshing intellectuality to the study of literaturc. By
thc same token, unfortunatcly, literary theory can degenerare imo
mere words, an cxercise in choplogic-we can become Swift's spider,
ignoring the world around us in order to spin a geometric web of
abstractions o ut of o u r own emrails. An absorption in t heory some-
times cuts off the study of literature fi'Om other human realities-
science, history, politics, sodery. a variety of psychologies, the fa~1S of
literary creation. thc sociology and economic.s of our profession-
linally, therefore, from both literature and life. At its worst, literary
UTtMARY THI::ORY IN THI.o: UNIVERSITY; A ~URVEY

theory becomes hermetically sealed againsL Lhe slightesL breaLh of

common sense.

Wolfgang lscr, Univeo·siLy of Constance, West Cermany:

I. The aims I considcr to be threefold: (a) Frameworks have LO be
established in order Lo makc the encountcr with literature intersub·
jectively verifiable. A framework, however, should be more than jusL a
collecLion of premises if iL lays claim to being a theory; it sLands in
need of both revealing and substantiating its basic po·esuppositions.
This distinguishes literary theory from pre,•ailing typcs of criticism,
such as liLerary appreciation or Laste-orienLed impo·essionism. lf
frameworks fail lO tackle the task they werc designcd for, their in-
adequacics can be rectificd. This does not hold true of literary ap-
preciation, and Lhis is why iL tends to lapse into dogmaLism.
When thc study of liLeraturc is under fio·e- as it is nowadays-it
stands more than evcr in need of a Lypc of discourse which both
objectilies and justilics Lhis particular scholastic cndcavor.
(b) Literary thcory allows for sclf-rcflexivity of inLcr pretation. This
twin focus on whaL is LO bc interpreLed as well as on what is being
broughLto bcar in this acúviLy is indispcnsable in view o f the growing
awareness Lhat interpretaLion itself has its own history. A discovery of
Lhe historically conditioned sLances is bound to throw inLo relief the
viewpoint underlying and operative in each interprctaLion. In this
respcct literary theory initiates a hermeneutical process. in Lhe course
of which past and prescnt are continually mcdiated.
(c) A basic function of literary thcory consists in opening up new
realms of invesLigat.ion, which so far have nOL been fully in perspec·
tive. The literary medi um lends itself to the exploration of the work-
ings of the imagination, to answering questions such as why we stand
in need o f fiction and to what extent literature is able LO channel the
otherwise diffuse quality of Lhe imaginary imo our conscious exis-
tencc. Thcsc pursuits can be subsumcd undcr thc general hcading of
a cultural anthropology o f literaLure.
2. Theory seL me Lhinking about whaL it is I want LO know while
studying literature. It proved importam in my teaching, as I did noL
have LO imposc my own ideas on Lhe students, bm could make a case
why the subject under discussion was approachcd from a cenain
angle, and also what Lhe chosen approach was expccted to yield. This
enabled studentS to rcflcet on Lheir own intercstS much more in-
tenscly, and provided an opponunity for Lhcm LO testtheir own ideas
against those I had advanced. In this respcct Lheory functions as a
form o f midwifery in teaching.
As to my writing, theory enabled me tO pondcr issucs lying bcyond
426 NEW LJTERARY HISTORV

the ordinary business of interpretation, such as why we interpret and

lO whal extent we live by interpreting. Explorations o f 1his kind made
it necessary to look into activities anterior to interpretation, such as
reading and tCxl-proccssing, which happen in this very activity.
Scrutinizing arcas both anterior and posterior to interprelation rc·
sul1ed in an awareness of larger issues. such as 1he imaginary as 1he
fountainheael of the literary text, pauerns anel processes of com-
munication, as wcll as the way in which human facultic• are bcing
ac1ed upon by lhe medium of ou•· conccrn.
3. A basic problem is posed by the fact that theory is more often
than not learned anel studied as i f it wcre a subject in its own dght and
not an instrumcnt for finding things out. Consequently, students at
times project. a thcoretical frame of reference onto lhe texl, 1hu•
downgrading il to an illuslration of what lhe lhcorctical premisc en-
tails. Moreover, it proves difficull a11imes for smdents to apply theo·
retical frameworks properly.
This is largely dueto the fac11hat the distinction bctween theory and
mcthod is either nol distinctly drawn or nol sufficiently observed.
Theories generally providc premises, which lay thc foundation for
the framcwork of ca1cgories, whercas methods provide the tools for
processes of interpretalion. Whenever categories are used as tech-
niques, confusion ensues. Shortcomings of this lype have a lwofold
cause: (a) In literary theory as a disópline the distinction belwecn
theory and melhod is alltoo often blurred. (b) In order lo apply both
theorelical premises and categories adequately, a certain amount of
philosophic 1raining is required which a great many of ou r gradua1c
students lack. Thercfore il is ali the more necessary on lhe parto f the
thcorisl to bc both sufficicnlly clear and articulale in regarei to what
he imends to pu1 fon•ard.

Wallace Jackson, Duke Universily:

L T o open texts and comex1s. I take this to be 1he prime function of
lilerary thcory. Theorists seem always and proper1y engaged in
building the dty of crilidsm and thereby providing a habitation for
sensibilily and inlelligence.
2. Thcory is the way cri1ics see. By which I mean to say that once 1
have graspcd a principie, 1ha1, for example, 1here are no texls but
only interlexts, Iam well advanced on the way to an understanding of
how imagination deploys itself intracanonically. A basic thcoretical
principie of this kind underlies my lorthcoming study of Pope's po·
etry.
3. The easiest (and probably the most correct) response is to say
(.ITERARY THE0RY IN THE UNIVF.RSITY; A SURvtY 427
that the shortcomings are those of the theorists, bm pcrhaps my
problem is with the question itself. 1t covertly implies a distinction
between theory and, say, othcr modes of inquiry ('"educa\ion"),
whereas I prefer to think that theory is the form in which reason
recreates (raises) itself, an objectification o f ou r knowledge and crit-
icai wisdom, and thus theory is the apotheosis of our discipline.
Theory is aggregative rather than dispersive, multiple rather t han
single, open rather than closed.

Caro! Jacobs, State Univcrsity of New York at Buffalo:

I. To think in terms o f "the aims and functions of literary theory"
might well seem to presuppose the distinction between the question of
literature and the question of its theory, as though theory were a
mcthodology of investigation externai to its object of inquiry. Any
study of litcrature is implidtly or explicitly a theoretical study, even if,
and in a sense ali the more tcllingly when, it denies itself as sucb. No
criticai analysis can confrom the literary text without thinking, if only
unthinkingly, such questions as the nature ofrepresentation, oftruth,
of language, and o f reading. The "ought" in relation to the study of
thcory, the necessity o f the theoretical, is the ought ofliterature itself.
2. The theoretical consequences of this are that lhe teaching of
literawre will inevitably coincide with a teaching of criticai theory.
The practical consequences are that the bes1 students learn to read,
not only for content, and not only within a vaa·iety of received tradi-
tions. They learn to read literature, theory, and philosophy, bUL also,
most remarkably, themselves, which is 10 say, they learn to wrile.
3. Theory, therefore, cannot be ascribed 10 an ecccntric group of
critics with a pcrvcrse insistence on ítnporting foreign, continental
modes of thought, nor can Íl be relegated inslitutionally to one or 1wo
faculty members in a departmcnt. The shortcomings of the way in
which theory too often func1ions in American graduate programs
arise precisely from this forced compartmentalization of the theoret-
ical. The aberrations are many. Thc most common is the illusion lhat
one must, or even could, choose between. litea·ature and theory, as
though the choice were inevitably política!, and often polemical. For
what would it mean to choose "literature" to the exclusion of"theory"
if not a significam ignoratlCe of the o~ject at hand as well as of the
condition of one's own criticai enlerprise? And what would it mean lO
choose "thcory" lo the exclusion of "titerature"? Perhaps the too
common delusion that a criticai study of theoretical texts might be
possible withoUI an appropriate coming to terms wilh the traditional
428 NEW LITERARY HlS'rORY

literary ca non. But more crucial is the potential blindness 10 the

literarity of the criticai tcxt itself.

Hans Robert Jauss, University of Constance:

1. In the last decade the theory of literature was faced primarily
with the task of asserúng and methodologically establishing its own
position vis-à-vis the competing paradigms of lingui stic poetics,
structuralism, the empi l'ical social sciences, and semiotics. In view of
the new paradigms for thc study of the function, effect, and reception
of literature that have recemly won widc acceptance-New Literary
Hisf()ry bcars witncss to this trend-it seems to me that the time has
come to build new b•·idgcs to neighboring disciplines. 1 am thinking,
for instance, of historical anthropology. The new initiatives of this
discipline will especially benefot if the theory of literature succeeds in
distinguishing the aesthetic from other functions o f communicaúon
in life, and brings imo focus the actual achievements of that produc-
tive, recepúve, and ~'Ommunicative activity of man which underlies ali
experience o f art. I am also thinking o f Lhe imerdisciplinary theory of
understanding. Perhaps a still-to-be-developed literary hermeneutics
might relinquish its thcorctical autonomy and, in reflecting on its own
practice, anempt to make dear what possibilitics o f communication
aesthetic experience has unlockcd in the course of its history; indeed,
what possibilitics, even today-in opposition to the experiential de-
terioration of modem industrial socict y-it might still be ablc to un-
lock. Such a her·meneutics could help especially in meeting ou r press-
ing need to clear up the conditions, limitations. and obstructions in
communicative practice, as these apply to borh o ur everyday andou r
historical existence.
2. At Lhe Un iversity of Constance, sincc its founding in 1967,
literary scholarship has attempted to develop, for future teachers and
expe•·ts in various artistic media, curricula that demand equal fam il-
iarity with Lhe areas of theory and hiswry, merhocl and application,
inlerpretation and criticism. These initiatives were at first succ;essful,
were much imitated in the period of German university reform, but
then fell victim, more and more, firsl to governmental control in the
"coumcr·reform'' o f the sevemies, then fonally to a policy o f restriction
that had its mosr advcrse effcct in Germany upon the university as an
ed ucational institution. The ideas of the "Constance school" are today
practically extinguished in undergraduate swdy. although they do
live on in an unfonunately elitist postgraduate program.
3. Literary stud y in thc Constance mold allows its graduate so
much freedom for independem research and personal development
LITJ::RARV Tl-fEORY IN THE UN IVERSITY: A SURVEY

that the postgraduate program is better regarded as a "frame" than as

a system of requirements. Possibilities for imerdisciplinary coopera-
tion, however, are not used to fuU advamage. This is not a failure on
the parL of the offerings in theo•·y, but ralher a resull of lhe German
govcrnmcm·~ policy o f testriclion, sincc imcrdisciplinary s1udics are
not rewarded with academic posilions or olher vocational oppor-
tunlties.

Annettc Kolodny, Universily of Maryland:

I. In gene ral, literary lheory should function in such a way as to
make us ali belter readers o f t he widesl possible variely o f lexts. For
American literary study at this particular his1orical moment, for
example, thal entails the developmenl of theo•·etical frameworks
which will permil the female, lhe nonwhile, the non-Anglo, and the
somelimes o ral traditions to become, at lasl, recognized segments
within our multifaceted cultural inheritance. In lhis way, literary
theory can finally begin laking responsibility for lhe social conse·
quences of it.s assumptions and procedures.
To do this, however, means that professors of literalure musljoin
in acknowledging thal we a/L practice (or employ) theory-whether or
nol wc consider ourselves "theorisls." And, whether in the American
literature survey or thc Milton seminar, we musl make explicil the
theories underpinning our imerpretive strategies and paradigms of
litcrary history. Happily , few in the prole.ssion still hold 10 the notion
ofthe innoccm reader. Even so, too few ofus actively incorporate in to
the daily classroom dialogue some explanation of the how and why of
our rcading methods. As a result, we continue to mystify students
(and one another) as to the magic path by which we move from the
printed page 10 so elaborate an interpretation of it. In short, litet·ary
theory must come o ut of the closet of the occasional theory course or
summer institute and acknowledge ils presence, where il has always
been , in the literature dassroom.
2. At the very least, the term "feminist criticism" implies a chal·
lenge to the theoretical constructs and meth{)dological procedures
that have previously blinded litera•·y discourse to women's achieve·
ments and to the symbolic encodings of gender within texts. No
feminist critic, thercfore, can write or teach without regard for the
ways in which s/he is rejecting or refining established theories and
methods. As a result, individually anel collectively, feminist critics are
repeatedly responsible for init iating the academy's most probing
analyses o f the generation of literary theory. But in so doing, feminisl
critics suffer a peculiar burden.
430 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

Bccausc fcminist criticism is not (and does not wish to be) dislin-
guishcd by any monolithic thcorctical proposition or by any single
criticai agenda, it continues to develop and to derive its strength from
the very fact of its diversity. No questions are peremptorily put aside;
and with so much remaining to be done, feminist critics-as a
group-gcnerally tend to do cvcrything. Our label, howcvcr, mis-
leads. For the fact is, although the term "feminist criticism" has the
status of an umbrella under which diversity and ongoing dialogue
take sheltcr, many in this profession still hear it as desc1~ptive of a
specific (even dogmatic) proccdurc or method, on the orde,·of"Marx-
ist" or "psychoanalytic criticism.'' For collcagucs so foolishly inclined,
there is always the tempt.ation to belicvc that once thcy've scen (or
rcad or hcard or hircd) onc fcminist critic, they've encompassed us
ali. In a sensc, thcn, whilc our labcl allows for a valuablc statemem of
potitical cohesion. it also comributes to rendering us cominuall)' mar-
ginal and deplorably undcrcmploycd.
One practical consequence is that the feminist critic is thus bur-
dened to explain , in evcry class slhe tcachcs and in cvcrything s/he
writes, that her or his work participates in, but may well be radically
diffcrent from, the work of othcr feminist critics. And that repeatcd
caveat, especially whcn addressed to nonfeminist colleagucs who do
not know our work, has the further consequence of obscuring our
slumd concern with questions of theory.
3. The shortcomings, as I see it, reside not so much in thcory itself
as in the way theory takes its place within graduate education today.
To begin with, few graduate programs provide any systematic and
comprehensive introduction to the multiplicity of currcnt criticai
schools, theories, and debates. One explanation may be that English
departments too often seek out some "star" thcorist and subscquently
invcst ali responsibility for the graduate training of theory in the
hands of this onc prominent appointce. Anothcr explanation is the
understandable tendency of dcpartments to become havens for thc
like-minded and thus function as centers for one particular school or
mcthod.
To be sure, many a renowned criticai the01·ist honors the value of
introducing her or his graduate studems to the widest possible variety
of methods and theoretical orientations. Such a teacher thus avoids
the danger of mcrcly reproducing clones who will forevcr follow in
the menwr's beaten path. But it is also the case that those who have
attained prominence becausc of their articulation of some new
theoretical proposition tend to have powerful commitmcnts to pass-
ing on thcir 0\\'ll way o f doing and secing lircraturc. l'hc vcry passion
tl'rEKAR\' THEORY IN THE UNIVERS fTY: A SU RVEY 431

o f that comrnitment can be coerdve for the young and impressionable

graduate student, as can the subtle suggestion that the memor is
initiating the novice into a privileged vocabulary or p•·ivileged com-
munity.
These are, however. the inevitable risks of the passion and com-
mitmem that should propedy mark the criticai emerprise. To
min imize the more vicious consequences of such risks. I would urge
that we utilize that passion and commirment in such a way as to en-
large and open up debate at the graduate levei. This can be ac-
complished, 11rst, by encouraging ali faculty to examine the presence
of theory in their courses; and, second, by requiting that graduate
students be exposed to a variety of theoretical stances and theoretical
practitioners during the cout·se of their formal training. Where a
single departmem does not boast thc necessary diversity, we might
there begin experimenting with regional summer institutes and with
the sharing of faculty between two or more institutions.

Jan Kouwenhoven, University of Edinburgh, Scotland:

I. This question seems to presuppose some kind of situation ethics,
which I cannot espouse. Literal)' theory should concern itself, at ali
times, with whatever problems genuinely suggest themselves. re·
gardless of fashion or expediency; embracing no causes per se, not
even the most tempting of ali, apparent common sense. In ali its
pursuits, however, it should neve r lose sight o f two axioms: literature
requires valid imerpretation; and it has value, in virtue both of what it
is and of what it is about.
Thus occupied literary theory willr·ecognize its ancillary status. For
example, examining the natu re of metaphor, it might come up with a
sophisticated version of the view that ali literature, or even languagc
itsclf, is radically metaphorical; yet it will not persuade iLSelf that this
is somehow a more commanding insight than delicately tuned ap-
preciation of metaphor in, say. Horace, or Keats. In its search for
general truths it will not treat particular works as "cases" but, on the
contrary, try to understand historical and individual "th isncss" itself.
extending the hand of fellowship to scholars and biographcrs and not
even disdaining "writers aboUL their worl:.." lf it must deconstruct
anything, it will deconstruct itself rat her than literature.
2. I have long becn aware that, though ali students are, presum-
ably, impressionists in the sense of deriving imprcssions from what
they read, some articulate these as a matter of cour·se whereas others
remain naturally dumb. In the study of particular works, theory, or
432 NEW LITERARY tiiST()RY

rather specific theoretical propositions, may usefully be fired at both

catcgorics. They will sometimcs induce the silem to talk while they
demand coherence from the voluble.
Whether one shou ld teach theory as such to studems early on, when
lhey usually have little reading experience to apply it to, I do not
really know . Probably one should, at the risk o f creating a spurious
sense of mastery and giving rise to insubstantial party strife.

Murray Krieger, University of California, lrvine:

I. In view of the emphases of severa! recent theoretical move·
ments, I suspect the main business of literary theory should be to
address the question of whether lir.erature exists, and. if so, to deter-
mine, in principie, its differences from (or overlappings with)
nonliterature-whatever that turtlS out to be. But if the distinction
between literature and nonliterature wllapses, then severe questions
must be addressed about the continued existence of /ilerary theory.
We would have to ask whether there is only theory o f discourse at
large, into which what wc use to call literary theory must be seen to
now, without differentiation and without privilegc. So literary
theory's primary task, in the face o f current challenges, is to decide
upon its own status. This decision will help determine its function in
relation to the interpretation and criticism of texts and the realm o f
private and public power behind them.
Today litet-at·y thcor·y must ask also about thc status of th~'Oretical
discom-se itself as a text. ls it still responsible for individual acts of
criticism, so that it has what we used to think of as referential obliga-
tions to a world o f texts for the explanation o f which it was thought to
provide a rational structure? Or is it itself an original and autonomous
text demanding the interpretive activity we used to reserve for so-
called literary texts? Further, what is its relation to its culture's history
as well as to the history ofits own discipline> What attention should be
paid to its earlier practitioners?
Finally, as a result of these explorations, literary theor·y should be
prcpared to address the consequences of its decisions for the function
o f academic departments o f literature. lt can doso only if it confrontS,
and sccks to resolve, the unease ít feels with respect to its subject and
to itself.
2. For me theory has had significant and continuing <:onsequences
in my activity as a critic, both in teaching and in writing. I am old·
fashioned enough to think my thcory exists in large part to enlighten
and guide my practice. I insist, in other words, th.at it be responsive to
requirements for a definition of literature that, in turn, is responsive
LlT ERARY THEORY IN 1'HE UNIVERSIT Y: A S ORVEY

to thc brilliant ve rbal pc•·fonnances by the best works in the Western

literary canon. Recem d evelopmems have led me lO recognize othc r.
less text-cente red theoretical conce rns at the ve•·y cdge of thc litcrary
as it me rges into othe r tcxts and other forces in psyche and sociely.
perhaps also to be read as tcxts. But finally, I measure what works
theoretically for me by its power to hclp me work Cl'itically upon those
le xts that consLitute the maste r sy llabus for ou r courses in lite ralure.
3. Afte r many 100 rna ny yea rs during which litera•·y theory was
d c nied a role in graduate ed uca tio n in litc rature . the recem sp rcad o f
theorclical consciousncss has . in a good numbe r of institutio ns, led to
a theM etical arroga nce. In ma ny plaçes thc way has been o pcned fo r
thcory to bccorne a major fo rce in grad uatc study, bul man y of its
d efc nders would now tum upon the literatu rc d e partme nt t hut has
ne wly licenscd it and wou ld p ul in q uestio n thc d c pa•·tmc nt's o wn
liccnsc. whilc claiming lhe rig ht for thco•·y lO bc studicd o n its o wn. ll
sometimcs scc ms rcady. thcn , to de privc Lha t d e partmem's subjcct of
its p rivilege e ve u wh ilc it wo uld privilcgc iuelf. Whatcve r lhe vul-
ne ra bil ily o f lite•·ature d e partments tO such assaults, I wo uld suggcst
that, 10 lhe exteflllhat its successes and po pulm·i1y lead it t.o succumb
to t hese te mptatio us, the m'\jo•· sho•·tcoming o f theo•·y has been it~
f'a ilure to defi ne its o 'vn limits. A scco nd has hecu its t.ende ncy to
bccomc p;u·tisan, if no t uarcissist.ic, so that.. inst.cad of learning theory,
the studc nt 100 o ftc n is learning a theol'ist. o•· rest.ricted g roup o f
thcorim. So thco ry. as a subjcct o f study. musltry lO fi ud its co uuno n
suhject. Why 1101 begin by c:xplo ring thc histo rie:•I d cvelopmc nt of t.he
discipline and its Lc xls. up lO a nd incl uding the t·ccc nt, c mbattlcd
move mcnts? Whaleve r lhe necessary distortions produced by ou r
pcrw nal commitmcms, some dispassion aud distancc resulting fro m
this explo ratio n mig ht ind uce COITCCtions leading tO"'ard a schola rly
respotlsibility appro priat.c to g raduatc slud y.

Ncil Larseu, University o f Minnesota, graduat.c studcnt:

I. One must start by reco gniung 1ha1li1e rary t heory is in a state o f
pro u·acled crisis. The cxistence o f this c•·isis o n lhe inslitulional le vei
has meant a n unde rmining of the professional self-ide ntily and func-
tion o f the literary scholarltheorist. This in turn has lent a defe nsive
posturc LO int.c:llectual "'Ork whosc capacit y to prod ucc social use val-
ucs is no longer guaramccd by social convemio n and whose own
internai unily a ud co herence as a body oftheory and a nalysis is pro b-
lematic.
T hi.s is good in part- il has made it more difficult to maintain the
hege mon y of Lhe various positivist and formalist orthodoxies which
434 NEW LJTERARY HISTORY

result from the modernist hypostatization of the "literary." lt has

allowed for useful debate.
The danger to thcory comes in dctcrmining its mode of response to
the social pressures exerted upon it, parlicularly in ils ability to distin-
guish between opponunities to givc itself a new and criticaVpolilical
effectiveness and demands which simply reOeCL 1he needs o f the state
(e.g., the restriction oftheory, and its subordinalion, to the study and
descdpúon o f •·national cultures").
The prcsent crisis in literary theory comes of a more radical crisis
which poses the existence of society in its present formas a quesrion.
Given this, literary theory should adoptlhe measures which are nec-
essar-y for it to transform ilself into a well-defined practice of social
critique and social redirection.
2. A variety of circumstances-my training as a comparatist, previ-
ous training in philosophy, poliúcal concerns-have made questions
of theory, both li1erary and otherwise, the main focus of my work as
both gradua1e studem and ins1ructor. Practically speaking, thcory has
been my poim of departure-in par·ticular lhe theory/cr·itique of
ideology.
As might be imagined. the conse<(uences of this have been difficul-
ties in constructing a conceptual object of theorization which em-
braces bo1h the "litcrary" lCxts traditionally assigncd to 1his category
and lhe "non literary" contents which have made theor-y itself an ob-
ject of renewed interest and criticism. In the production of criticai
"writing" this presems itself as a hesitation before the "simple" task o f
"interpreting the text." In 1eaching it is the seemingly contradictor·y
job of instructing a canon alongside theoretical approachcs which
require that the canon be challenged and questioned as 10 its basis.
In the one major opponunity I have had to teach a course in 1heory
(in this case lhe theory of ideology as Íl relates 10 acsthetics) I found
that the students ("honors" undergraduates at the University of Min-
nesota} had serious difficulties in the "application" of theory tO liter-
ary texts. This was due neither to an incomprchcnsion o f thcory nor
to an unfamiliarity with reading literature. but rather LO a marked
resis1ance to the positing of representation as a 1heoretical problem.
3. Again I should note that my encounte•·s with th cory as a
graduate student are probably atypical. In my partiçular program
theory is hcavily emphasized, and therc is a consider·ablc degree of
breadth in the theoretical discourses with which one is encouraged to
become conversam (e.g., semioúcs, psychoanalysis, Marxism, her-
mencutics, etc.). I see no special deficiencies in this type of intellectual
training- 1 think it has proven advantages.
I f there are defidencies, they a•·e notthe result of the educational
l.ITERARY TJ.IEORY I N THE UNI VE:RSI 'fY: :\ SURVf;Y 435

project of learning and elaborating t heory, but rather t he effect of

having to negoliate the dcmands which both the traditio n and the
uncertain social logic of the profession place o n this kind of projcct.
In th is scnse the deficiency o f literary theory is its hcsitancy 10 move in
the direction of a more powerful and rigorously defined theory of
ideology and sign-cultu re, lest, by doing this, it give up its daim to
ultimate authority over an exclusively "literary" ficld of textS, values,
and practices. But meanwhile, this field is losing, or has lost, its social
underpinning, and thcory is left hanging.

David Lodge, Unive•·sity of Birmingham, England:

I. Some people regard literary theory as a self-sufficicnt ficld of
speculation and ded uctivc reasoning which need not justify itself in
terms of practical application; but I must admit that I myself see its
valuc primarily as scrving the cause of the "better'' reading of texts,
by enhancing ou r awareness o f the muhiplicity and complexity of the
processes of composition and reading.
2. I thi nk it has been a two-way process: intuitive insights in search
of a theoretical explanation or justification for thcmselves, and the
encounte•· with new theories (formalism, structuralism, poststruc-
turalism) provoking one into discovering meanings in texts one might
otherwise have missed.
3. I would put this the other way round: a major shortcoming of
graduate educalion (and for that matter undergraduate education) in
this country is a lack of cohercnt, systcmalic tcaching o f the theoreti-
cal bases of the subject (English)-though at Birmingham we do bel-
ter than many other institutions.

Adrian Marino, Cluj-Napoca, Romania:

1. Literary theory lies at the very foundations of ali esthetics. liter-
ary criticism, and literary history. Without a cohercnt and well-
reasoned literary "system" ali of these disciplines would be at a com-
plete loss, which often happens. By "literary theory" I mean not o nly
special theoretical (su·ucturalist, semamic, semiotic) disciplines but
also a general imerpretive "system of systems" which at presem is
lacking.
Literary theory also has the extremely important function of
analyzing, classifying, and defining basic literary concepts. The
number of "personal," subjective acceptations and definilions is steadily
incrcasing. The semantics of literary terminology is becoming mo re
and more individualislic, so to speak, hence thc obj ectivc necessity of
a "criticism o f literary ideas."
 Literary theory is conducive to free literary Lhinking, a sound alte r-
native to ali rigid and dogmatic, rigorously orthodox, literary ide as.
2. Lite rary Lheory o ffe rs basic concepLual information and orien-
tation to ali students of lite rature. 1t serves as a Lrue "introducLion" to
Lhe theore tical anel ideological world o f lite rature. Lite rary wo rks are
related to categories and placed o n vario us abstract and general leve is.
He ncc, the dcve lopment o f a double liLerary response: intuiLive-
esthetic and rc llective-inte llectua l with the e n suing equilibrium o f the
leveis. T hc litcrary product quo art o ffc rs csthctic satisfactio n o pe rat-
in g simultanco usly as an artefart produccd in a speci fic ideological
contc xt which has an ex plicit or implicit esthetic progra m prcsup·
posing, nay. cornpe lling theorctical re Oectio n.
In my wOJ'ks o f c riticism, lite rary thcory con stitutcs at the samc
time a starting (>Oint, a mcthod, and a targc t LO be aimed at as a
J>Ossibly original cont ribution. T wo of my latcst wclrks,/.,'1-/erm~"'"lique
de Mircta Eliade (Pa r·is, 198 1) a nel fitiemble ou /e compflratisme milita111
(Pa t·ís, 1982). a t·c rc latcd 1.0 ~~~ o rganized hcrmcn eutic and compa ra-
tive thcorc tícal rc Oectio n. whic h I p rcscnt as ime rprctations fro m
m y poim o f vic w a nd in which I "cl'iticízc" and o ffer o "pc rson al"
sollllio n. Essays o f this kind wo uld not bc possíblc witho ut a ge neral
hermen eutic and co mp;rrativc thcory. T hc pracrical co nseq uencc
dirccts u s to pc rson al orie nt ario n, scimulation, compa rison an d rc-
search.
3. The s ho rtcomin gs o f litc rar·y tho:or·ies iu gradua tc educat íon .
a lmost a li of the m, d erive from two sourccs: (a) Pe rsonal studics o f
widc range (thc Rc né Wc llck kind) a re o n thc decline or rarely to be
found, so thc o·c is a s honage o f basic rcfc nmcc works a nd Lhe teaching
o f litc r·ary thcory ineviwbly bccomcs fragmc nta ry and inco mplc rc.
Practically s pc aking . o nc can n<l lo ngcr spca k. o f a "complete" course
o i' literary LhL"'ry. (b) l'ressurc exer1ed by iruellectua l fashions is almosL
e verywhc re very strong a nd. the re fore . "mod e m " method s enjoy
pr·io rity ovc r· "classical" method s. Teachc rs o f lite ra ture very o fte n fa li
fo r mod e m d e fini1icms o f rh eto ric, fo rgcuing lhe Lwo-Lho usand-ycar
sta nding o f the subjc:ct. T hey also fo rge1 the no less importam fact
that the ncw d c finiLio ns simply re pe at o r " re discoverJ' idcas that are
we ll known. Wha t is essemia lly lacking al thc mome m a re d etailed
coursc:s in the history of lhe literary idca, o f rhc toric, poctry, and so
fo nh . Wo rks uniting ali tir e as pects o f li1e rary study a re like wise lack-
ing. Fragmenta riness I'Uns counter to synthesis whilc fashions run
against confrontatio n and historical pe rs pective.

Henryk Ma rkiewicz. University of Kr·akow , Poland:

I. I considc r as ma in tasks o f litc rary theory atlhe prese m Lime: (a)
furthcr rcflcction on thc regularities of lite rary process, s urmouming
the Marxist-structuralist alternative; (b) d e velo pmenL of a "grammar
o f the lite rary text," especially a theory of"great semantic conligura-
tions" (e.g., charactcrs, space configurations, plotas opposed lO nar-
,·ative schc me); (c) elaboration o f a canon o f d cscription o f li1 erary
wo rks; (d) methodological re nenion o n modcs o f a rgume mation in
litcrary criticism and on standards o f valid inte rpretatio n.
2. I think that, owing to liter ary theory, my tcaching o f litc raturc
anel my essays in criticism are more systcmatic, precise, conscious, anel
pc rsuasivc.
3. Thcsc shon comings a re conncctcd with the spcculative and
abstruse c ha racte r o f many o f today's thcorc tical cffo rts. But thcy ;H c
also caused by intellcctual wcakncsscs o f studc nts who are unablc to
apply thci1· thcorctical knowlcd gc to practical c riticism.

Viela E. Ma1·kovic, University o f Bclgradc, Yugoslavia:

I . Now that we are witncssing thc proccss o f thc "rcvaluation of ali
valucs'' a nd thc hithc rto unqucstionably acccptcd principies of litcr-
ary theory a re brought into qucstion, it is lite rary thcory thflt o ug htto
o ffe1• a basis, OI' bettcr a point of dc parturc, 10 comlJat thc genera l
Ouidity a nd •·caffirm thc basic assumptions govcming thc rulcs o fthc
gamc in t.hc a rt nf lit crnturc.
lts functio ns shtluld co ntinue to lx: tu kcc p thc hcritagc o f litc rary
thcory o f thc past fully alive a nd to o ffcr thc ncccssary gu id clincs 10
the study o f litel'aturc so that . o nce th is radical rccxamlnatio n has
reachcd point zero, to ward which it is heading, a nel a pcriod o f rcin-
tcgration has set in, the study o f literature can co ntinue its uninter-
ruptcd com·sc witho ut. ha ving suffc•·cd a ny pcrma ncnt. d amagc.
2. l t is by falling back upon litc rary thcory that I could d ircct my
stude nts tow;u•d the rt lldi11g, and f1·o m thCI'C to lhe aptJYtcilllum and
cvtJl1wlion of litcr:u·y texts. Witho ut a n awarcncss o f a literary wo1·k
as a jorm 1 could ncithc•· have ta ught lite ratu i'C as a n o nto lc)gically
autonomous a1't , no r could I h ave firmly g ro unded any o f my writings
o f criticism. Unlcss the studc nl is madc a warc o f a litcrary work as a
fo rm, which offc rs ce nain possibilities to the a uthor, o n the o ne sidc.
a nd de te rm ines the scopc of thc •·cadcr's cxpccta tion, o n the othcr,
the literary wo rk cannot have its real cffect, cxc rcise itS full impact
on thc studcm . Thc invisible line separa ting a lite rary text fl·o m that.
o f mc rc information, c ven o f the highest order, gc ts o bliterated ; the
actual mcaning o f lhe work, contained in the insepara ble unity o f
f orm and conteflt., gctS lost: lite raturc, be reft o f itS c>nto logic:'l nature,
is •·educcd to yct anothc r a vc nuc of informatio n. And it is just wha t
lite rature alone can offe r, beyond information, that makcs it uniquc
and invaluable.
3. I f prope rly used, within the confines of it.~ refc,·ential field,
438 NEW l. tTERARY Hl STORY

lite rary 1heory can only comribule 10 g raduale cduca1inn. lf supel'im·

posed o n 1he study o f litc rature, treated as a pursuit with no refcrencc
10 thc study o f li1c raturc pro pcr, i.c., if mcchanically uscd- likc
chasing a single p<>Ctic image in say a novel, a poem, a drama, ora
story, with nc) rc fe rencc LO its m crmin g or function in Lhe work as a
wholc-litc r:try theory becomes irrelevam . Separa1cd fi'Clm i1s object
i1 becomcs mca ningless.

Jcrome J. McCann, Califomia lnstitutc o i' Tcchnology:

I. T he purposc o f 1heorctical work, in an y practical discipline like
li1crary study, is LCI CXIX)SC thc gi'Ounds a nd prc miscs o n whic h onc's
scho larly work is baseei . T h cory is inmomural a nd re flc xive, and
co mm c nts on practicc. lt o ug h1 10 improve 1hc stud y o f li t.er:.-
turcllilcrary works e ither by improving (relining , disciplining) o ne's
normal prac1icc, or by s uggcsting nCI' avcnucs of approach.
2. My own thcorctic;al studics, in thc pasl cight ycars a1 any rmc,
wcrc dclibcratc ly undcnakcn to cnablc a more salicnc kind o f h islo r-
ically groundcd criticai practice. 11 has always sccmcd to me scJf.
cvidc nt thal lie.cratu rc is a f'c:)l'ln of social and cultu•·al practicc, and
hc nce that litcrary stud y had 10 hc histo •·ically groundcd, and histo r·
ically sclf.conscious. To thc rcigning f()l'lns of ahisto •·ical criticism
(1hcy are lcgion, and s1ill d o minam), no th ing could bc lcss sclf·
cvidc n t. Consequc rul y, I fo und it im possiblc 10 prac1ice rny own
work. in the prcscne acadc mic climat.e, without acquiring a d earc r and
mo•·c sclf-conscious grasp o f my own scholal'ly and critica i p•·e miscs.
3. Dcspilc thc hoSlile rcsponscs which theoretical work somc1imcs
draws 10 it self nowadays, and d cspitc thc mc•·c fashion able ness of so
muc h curre nt thco•·ctica l wo1·k, I do not sce that theory is an arca
which shows any special cd ucational shor1comings. T he problcms o nc
sccs in graduate studies scern to me a function of' a more general
decline in scholarly skills and standa•·ds. Sin ce your qucs1ion is 11<>1
add•·csscd to tilis ma tter, howc vcr, I will forcbcar expatialing on it.

Ronald l'aulson, Ya le Univcrsity:

L Lite rary theory shou ld illuminate works of literature-within as
well as o utsidc the canon-and also, I believe, works outside "lilera-
lure'' i1self. l mcan that literary theory is benelicia lly applied 10 the
underdeveloped arcas, l'o1· example arl history a nd history. Literary
thcory h as led us in lhe last cou pie o f d ecades to dcal with muc h more
than thc discrcle work of literaturc- with scl'ies of works, thcir au-
lhors, ambiences, audiences, and so on. Secondarily, the functio n of
l.ITF.RARY 1'NE0RV I N TNF. UN IVF.R.SITV; A S URVEV 439
literary theory can be (in a scnse must be) to direct the student back
imo thc study of literary theory itsel f-and so to bring theory back,
once again rcncwcd, tO illuminatc works of literaturc.
2. Thcory-divorced, I suppose you mean, from pracricc-has lcd
me to rethink my own practicc and rcturn to it with a frccr, more
open mind. lt has also. in graduatc reaching, lcd me to place more
emphasis th<1n I uscd to on different me1hodologies, 1heir use by
crirics, and their relative appropriateness 10 this or 1hat body of
litcrary-histnrical materiais.
3. 1'hc o nly shortcoming of litcntry thcory- or rathcr its prescnt
hcgernOn)•- for gradumc study is that, sincc wc areal a br·caklhrough
and consolidation s1agc. lherc is a tcndcncy to rcplacc as wcll as aug-
mcnl lhe tcaching of thc canon wirh th~ lcaching o f litcrary thcor·y.
Much as I r·cspcctlhc thcorctical wor·k o f thc last decaclcs, I am some-
times disa ppoimed to see gradu a1e stuclents emerge knowing more
about cur·renl lheorics than abou1 Milton or Sha kespearc; and, a scc-
ond conscqucncc, fccling r.hat. a disser·tation, essay, or book that is nor
"at thc cutting cclgc" cr·itie<tlly-indcccl, that is not aboul thcory- is
inferior. I wish it were not bencath thc clignity of some graduare
studcnt~ to cdit a tcxt or carry out old-fashioncd r·esc;ll·ch; I also wish
it was a mor'C common prac1ice to Slal't with the 1ex1 and or·iginal
rcsca rch and thcn build appi'Oprialc criticai modcls upon this firm
founda1io n. The ordcr· o f pl'ior·ity for gracluar.e study has to rcmain :
knowledge o f lhe canon. knowledgc of how to 1cach and writc abou1
litcrary tcxts, knowlcdge o f lhe historical contcxt (c.g., criticalthcory)
o f these tcxts. and knmvledge of contcmporary cl'iticalthcory, first as
applicablc to the tcxts, and seconcl for· its own sake. Having rcachcd
1his SJ>Ol, some graduatc swclents may want to specializc in thc histor·y
of critical thcory or in criticai theory per se.

David Puntcr, Univcrsity of East Anglia, Norwich, Englancl:

I. To addr·cs~ itsclf to the inrerpretation of the reading act in the
contcmporary cultural context: to demonstrare for us lhe location
which thc "unaccompanicd word" is coming to have in a wol'ld whcre
habitual learn ing pmtcrns are now largely characterizcd by the con-
densed hieroglyphs oi' commercial and political persuasion: to lay out
the ground on which rcflexiviry can bc unclerstood, so rhat students
and teachcrs alike can come at a bctter understanding o f 1he subjects
(selves) which thc lit~rar-y tcxt is designed to produce; thus to assist in
constructing a corr-ect political cliscrimination betwcen texts.
To producc a new anel more soph isticat.ed undersranding of the
processes whereby text becomes commodity, and cultUral intercourse
440 Nf:W 1.11'ERAttY HlS'rOAY

is reduced to the modelo f the exchange o f c ur.·ency; to recognize and

work with thc fact that thc o ld literary function o f thc provision and
relinemcm of sclf-imagcs has now largely passcd to othcr cultural
forms (popular music, de based política I rhctoric, journalistic prac-
tice), and to scck o n that basis an understanding of the role of the
"conte mpora ry lite rary"; te>d evelop ways in wh ich, pedagogically. the
blockcd circuits wh ich should conncct lilcrarurc with 1hc e xpansion of
the imaginary and o f famasy can bc rcvitalized .
2. The works of B>mhcs and Foucault in panicul;tr offcr thcory in
ways which can be madc ovcr into 1hc act of teaching, bccause thcy
deal in thc "bccoming" of knowlcdgcs. in thc actual modes o f I'CPI'O·
duclio n and acquisitio n whic h charact.e rizc education. Thcy c ne<>ur-
agc us lO thin k scrio usly about strategics and 1hus al~:>ut lhC hidde n
"intcrcsts'' which the lcxl se rves. This is an arca whcre studenls need
to cxpcricnce dcmys1ifica1ion ifthcy are lo pcrccive thc more dctailcd
and local s1ructures of lilcralut·c as effcctive in tcrms of 1hcir own
cxpcriencc.
Much of thc c nergy de ployed in writing c1·iticism no w scems to me
lo bc use fui only insof;u· as it relates to thc pcdagogic; 1hc re has bec n a
flow of lifcblood fi'Oill cducatio n, economically a nd symbolically, and
this nccds 10 be reversed by lhe e ncou ragcmcnt o f a se1·ious rcllc xivity
about the na1u1'C of t)ur activitics as wache1·s o f litcnllui'C, and about
what it is that wc "hold" fo1· the widcr socicty. Unlcss wc ca n cffect
such co nnectio ns, wc will lind o ursclves gcn1celly inhnbiting a
muscum. with 1hc "modcrn" producLS of Marxism nnd fcminism no
lcss sccurcly c ncascd in glass than the traditio nali.srns wc profcss to
dcspise a nd supcrscdc.
3. T hc oomparmive abscncc of rcflcxivity mcans that ma ny c ritics
and theorists, cvcn when thcy are wl'iting aboul lhe conslruction and
deconstruclion o f thc subjcct, d o not contcmplalc lhe sclvcs l hcy are
c ndeavori ng to produce in lheir rcaders; those selves often a1·e not
o nes familiar w or valued by stude nts at undcrgraduatc le vei. At
postgraduatc levei, this bccomcs lhe gro und for a schizophrenic phc-
no me non: students repcat and try 10 intc rnalize progressive lo rmu-
lations. while bcing still l~u11dcd by thc fo rmal individualism of rc-
search; adv:mcc in thCOI'Clical undcrstanding comes to sccm indislin-
guishable from a loss o r felt authcnticity.
l'ostgraduatcs are lhe "adolescents" of 1hc symbolic family system
of hig hcr education, but we can no longer promise thern a fu1ure;
thcy hopc that by acquiring lhe protectivc coloring of thcory, 1hcy can
somehow escape this fate, but in façt this acts as a pacifier LO thcir
incipient revolt. Ralhe r than theory, I believe that what the higher
tcaching o f English is in nced o f is method, a conccntration on placing
LITERARY THEORY IN Tl<f. UNIVf.RSITV: A SVRVEV 441

instrumcnts for analysis securely in the hands o f studems, so that they

can come ata less mystcrious undcrstanding o f the tcxL, and simuha-
neously see the complex of social and psychological relations which
charactcrizes thc social systcm o f thc cducaLors.

David S. Randall, St.at.e Univcrsity of New York at BinghamLon,

graduatc student:
I. Thc aims a.nd functions of contemporary litcrary theory ought
10 bc 10 continue <H1iculat.ing a varieLy of fundamental qucstions
conccrning thc inquit·y into its "disciplinary" naturc. This inquiry
ought to pursuc Lhe libcration o f liLerat•y theory LO determine its own
"proper" ends, by recogn iling Lhose elc mcnts in its l'>ast <1nd prcsent,
espedally in t hc economic and political comcxts in which thcoretical
prioritics have lx:cn cstablishcd, which have philosophica lly per··
pctuated what Nictzschc has callcd thc spirit of "·ressmtimertt." This
r·ccognition is a means wward transvaluating expccrations and ends,
as wcll as explol'ing and exposing idcologica l inconsistcncics and
C<plivocfotions. This inc1uiry ought to rccognize the sour-cc o f such
valuc judgmcnts as dynastically au.cmpting co determine and dclinc
thc cxistcncc of thc so-callcd litcrary objcct as well as rccognize the
rcndcncy o f contcrnporarr litcrary thcory to opposc the systematizing
of thc qucstion of intcrprctation, which, as Manin Hcidcggcr has
suggestcd . is uhimatcly thc qucscion o f understanding. Furthcr. this
inquiry oughr to rccognize and acccpt its cdtical "failur·c o f conscn·
ws" without inicably rcaching a ftcr t hc :rllcgcd facts o f its "st ructural"
framc of rcfcr·cncc, formallitcr·ar·y scmiosis. or lhe apparcnt rational-
ity of thc rclationship bctwccn licerar)' production and political
cconomics.
2. The practical conscqucnccs or· implicatiorrs o f the cuncnt crisis
in rhcoar has inllucnccd my tcaching, which if wc follow Dc rrida is
ultimatcly a form of wricing, by rcndcring it an inquiry into unin·
tcndcd cornmirmcnts and accidcmal a.llianccs. This hermcneutical in-
quiry has disdosed practices and assumptions which wcrc being cxer-
cised informally and implicitly, espccially in Lhe rcalm of"rhetoric." in
which a relcntlcss methodological attachment tO the r.cchnology of
Platonic a nd neo-Aristotclian pcrsuasion harbors particular ideolog·
ical and philosophical entanglcmcnts. This inquiry invariably implies
alternative stratcgies of reading, which appcar to in volve possibilities
for changc in the aim(s). function(s), and relevance o f literaturc itSclf,
reverberating in thc shifting significancc o f criticism as well as litcrary
theory. Essentially, contemporary literary theory has not mcrcly
skeptically scrutinized the Lraditional prcsuppositions and meth·
442 NEW LITERARY HISTORV

odologies of schola rship structurally, d estructivcly, and d econstruc-

tively, but, pe rhaps more imponant, it has rcviralized the scle rotic a nd
obscurcd problemaric o f language irself. To asscrr rhar this consc-
qucncc o f contcmporary litc rary rhcory ought to bc (or has bccn) onc
o f its prima•·y intentio ns o r funcrions wo uld be indicative o f a n ali too
família•· rational impulsc. Nevcrthcless, it is crucial that studcnrs of
both writing and tcaching reasscss their undcrstaneling o f language,
its "prescribed" aims and functions. in light o f as well as in thc sundry
shadcs o f darkncss that rhcory illuminates.
3. Atrhe levei of graduare cducatio n a fcw sho rtcomings o f theory
includc: (a) t hc perpetuar íon ofan ambicncc nfsccmingly irresolvablc
a nd violem idcological warfarc among its privilcgcd "thco•·ists,'' anel
(b) a ubiquitous a nxiety surrounding its stude nts, sincc merc lip
servicc is institutionally cxtendcd 10 the necessary interdisciplinary
conccptual instruction csscntia.l Lo c ncountcring thc current criticai
" ·isis. This anxicty in thc acadcmy ha.s bccn hcig hLc ncd in pari since
the shift from scholarship to spccu larion c ngendercd p•·inci pally by
Lhe ge neral distrusl o f and inquiry imo the convcntional paradigms o f
analysis •·cfcncd to p•·cviously. Grad uatc lcaming is thco••ctically a
forum for cducational cxploration anel cxpcrimcnrmion bul, in tcrms
o f pmxis, it bccomcs a cocrcivc disciplinary instrumcm fo•· thc impo-
siticJn o f c xclusivc catcgorics o f thi nking. stundard discoursc systcms,
a nel distinctively dcfincd opportunities. Hc:nce, graduate cducation
becomcs a rcvicw of thc inscl'ibcel forces of thco•·y. litcraturc, and
languagc; a panoptic ovcrvicw of l he su·a tegic anel occasionally solip-
sistic skirmishcs bctwccn liccnscd practitioncrs; as wcll as a prcview of
lhe nihilistic po tc ntial o f thc llc•·mcnc utical circle o f res.re11timtnl e x·
tcnsivcly sust:ti ning thcoretical dialectic. Thesc rcmarks nsscrting
ccnain inadcqur<cics o f thcory in an atadcmic contcxl are not in-
lc nd cd to imply a elesirc or dircction for "rcform," mercly Lhe her-
mcncutical awarcncss Lhat ali knowlcdgc or understanding is neithcr
ror.ally thcorcLical nor pracrical. Both thcory and pract.icc lcgislatc a
priori assumptions, a nd what musl be questioned in this "quandary" is
lhe pal'!ia l a nel con tcxtual nalUI'C o f intc•·p•·ctalinn.

l' hilip Rice. Univc rsity o f Birmingham, England, gradu:11c stude nt:
I. Thc problcmatizing of litcr.uurc as a category suggests the necd
to dismantlc thc concc pt o f a purcly "litcrary" lhcory, a nd the need to
inst.all. in ils place, a broadcr "criticai" 0 1· "cultural" theory which can
d eal with a va•·iety of cultural procluctions, including lhe lilera•·y.
On a mo re spccific levei, however , and o ther than maimaining its
critique o f the assumptions of lraditional criticism, the aim of literary
l..IT E RA~Y THEORY IN THF. UNIVERSITY: A SU RVEY 443

Lheor y aL presem o ughL LO be LO imroduce more rigorous forms of

analysis which are more firmly grounded o n adequate a nd cohe rent
LheoreLical foundations. WhaL is called for, in order to lay such foun-
daLion s, is funhe r invesrigaLion o f thc material rclatio ns bctwcen a u-
Lhor. rcxt, and rcader: invcstigations which takc cognizancc of Lhe
insLancc of Lhe 1ex1 chosen for a nalysis- cither 1hc momc nl of its
production or 1he moment of its re produc1ion- wirh a concomirant
considera1ion o f i1s sociohisto l'ic context. Tha1 acLivity which trcar:s thc
tc xL as "hc rmctic objcct to bc re vcaled" mus1 bc displaccd in favor of
forms o f analysis which dcscl'ibc Lhe c:onditions o f cmergcncc o f a tCxL
(whal makes a partiwlar texl possiblc at lhe momen1 of its appcar-
ancc); which examine thc discourscs i1 draws upon a nd rhe kinds of
knowledgc it scts in circula1ion and givcs form to; whic h analyze the
stallls i1 is accOI'dcd in thc hicrarchics o f discou rscs; and which d c-
scrihe the syste ms of dc1ermination (lhe discursive practiccs) 1hro ugh
which a tcxrual hcrmcncutic is pi'Ojcclccl and aclualizcd.
2. I havc u·icd tO c vo lvc a praclical mc1hodology for dcaling with
lhe le xt whic h d oes nut r·einstalc i1 as an objcct rcplclc with mc;m-
ing(s) Lo be uncovcrcd by thc litcrary gaze. T his Iras mcant Lrcating
lhe Lext as an objccl from lhe c ultural arc hive anel sul:!jecting it lO Lhe
analytic proccdurcs outlinccl abovc, mapping out lhe practiccs of
writing and rcading 1h rough wh ich it is prod uccd and t·c produced, 10
uncovcr·. on thc one ht~nd, the general epist<:mological configuration
and, o n thc ot he r·, 1hc d iscourse-spccific rulcs o f fonnat io n of thosc
re xtual oqjects, :.olways bearing in mind lhe way 1hosc same tc xts
cha ngc hiswricall y a nd according lo thc clifferent pat·adigmatic
fmmc5 through which thcy are rcalized. T his has c ntailed looking a1
discourscs (suc h as the soci<ol , po li1ical, <1nd philosophical) and te xts
(such as jo urnalism and popular· ftcrio n) o thcr 1han thc "litcrary."
!1. T hct)ry has tc ndccl to bc 1reated as a second :u·y acLivit y to lhe
central c ntcrprise o f interprcting thc "grea1 wo rks" : thc re has bccn a
te nde ncy to see it either as providing a new sct o f pragmatic wols,
potcntially libcra1ing intcrprctivc cons1raint.s to yicld çvcr more in-
gcnious rcadings of texts, or w see it as having liule 10 do with, or to
o ffcr LO, lhe evcryday activity of lite rary studies. lt has had to coun -
teract a marginalizing position as too rar·e fied LOdcal wi1h acluallexts,
or has bccn pressed imo the service o f in terpreting t.he already
canonized cor pus. Such dcfusing and appropriating of thcory has
tc ndcd to e ndorsc, rathcr tharr displacc, thc d ominancc of textual
intcrprctation, and has rnaintaincd 1hc rigid discipline lx>undaries
lhat it should bc helping lo bt·eak down by bringing into visibi lity
forms othcr 1han the valorized literary tcxt.
444 NEW ~IT t RARY tiiSTORY

Robcrt Schwartz, Oregon State Univcrsity :

I. To answc r this qucstion in its broadcst and most practical form
lirst, l takc thc function ofthcory to bc to help us to define thc canon,
to establish which works me rit study and apprecia1ion and which do
not . This can seem only an accide ntal end of methodology, bul il
rcmains, to my mind, thc intcntion o f thcory. Put a liulc lcss broadly,
though, lite rary theory sll()uld auc mpt to pt·ovide the logical and
ph ilosophical assumptio ns o n which analysis and hence judgmc nt
could bc bascd. And in this regard it should secm, at lcast insofat· as
on this le vei it is "sciemilic" and descriptive, not lo imply idco logical
judgments. Whethe r it is possible or nmto d escribe thc wo rkings o f
languagc and tcxu without liuing thc dcscriptions imo a framc work
f'•·cc of pcrsonal assumptions, though, is a sc•·ious qucstion. At an y
rate, in addition 10 trying to dcscribc how languagc and tcx~~ "'ork,
thco r y sho ulel also atlcmpt to cxplain how and wh y thcsc workings
h;1vc bcc n anel can bc so vario usly intc rprctcd: that is to say, how and
wh y wc judge lite ralUre as we do give n what we <L~sume about ••hat it
is and how it is transmiucd . lt is notncccssary (nor possiblc, lthink) to
conside r litc•·aturc as a uniquc form o fdiscoune anel he ncc cstablish a
vocabu la•·y anel intc rprctative base that applies only to lilerary lé xts.
2. Thc rc is much th:u I could say about this, starting, fo r c xa mplc,
with thc o bscrvation that thcory has scl fo r me pa•·amc tc rs (pcrso nal
;mel widc tho ugh thcy may be) o f wh;u can bc rulcd in o r rulcd o ut o f
intc rprc wtio n. But mo•·c impommt than an y mcthodological inOu·
cncc is a mo re gene ral -shil't in my auitude toward te xts. Thc com-
plexities and contradictions o f thcorctical pc rspcctivcs have lcft me, in
my classroom and in my study. likc Philip Sidncy's Poet who "nothing
<•flirmes, and thcrclo re ne ve•· lye th." I am so awarc of thc shifting
sands o f thcory that 1 am rcluctam to takc a vc•·y fit·m stand on thc
final signilicancc o r meaning o f a text. Atlirst I consiclcrcd 1his lo bc a
kind of unfo rtunate fcar of saying o r thinking some thing thal was o r
would soon bc w•·ong. But I find it has gmwn imo a fully blown
cdectidsm that I am really quite comfonable with . I am less con-
cerncd with whattcxts "mcan" in any absolutc or dcmonstrablc scnse,
and more conce rned with how and why diffe rent readcrs a1 diffe rent
times lind diffcrcnt mcanings and valucs in thc samc tcxt. I don't
belicve thaltheo•·y has inOuenced lhe tcxts that 1 c hoosc to teac h o•·
write abotll.

George Stciner, Churchill Collegc, Cambridgc, England:

I . Propcrly uscd, thc word tileo,.y cntails catcgories of potcntial
ve rilication/falsilication, more or less comrollcd expcrimentation,
and formalization (along the lines, say, of Popper's usage or of thc
usage of thc 1vord in Lhe cxact and the natural sciences).
Applicd LO literature o r the ans, tkory is, at bcst, a metaphoric
"lonn" (a n~balo) and, at worsc, a piccc o f obscurantist pretense. What
we havc in serious arguments about or methodological o rderings of
works of literaLure and of art are "rational myLhologies," "discursive
scenarios"-c.g .. a Marxis1 ora psychoanalytic reading of' a tcxt, an
"ontological" construing. as in Hcidcgger, a myth of Lhe abscnt sub-
ject, as in 1hc poetks o f Mallarmé and of his dcconstructivc cpigoncs.
Such programmatic mythologies can bc of greaL streng1h and sugges-
tion : they a1·e not "thco•·ics" in any responsible scnsc.
2. My studcnts and I do ou r vcry bes1 10 lcarn to read tnge1her . Wc
seek to bring Lo bear on the manifold and historica lly mct.amorph ic
livcs of' thc tcxt the "speculalive instrumcnt.s" (Coleridgc) of ling uis·
1ics, of philology. of' hcrmcncutics. Thc res ull is, whcn luck and
conccn1ra1ion hold, an txplicatioll li• lt.,lt, always provisional, always
and cxplici1ly "a1 thc service of" 1hc poctic-creativc ac1. I regard as
pre1en1ious absut'<Jity curt•ent claims for lhe cqui valcncc in irnpn•··
wnce or spcdfic gravi1y of text and commcn1 ary. Thc existcnlial·
temporal dcpcndcrtte of thc lauer upon the fo rmer is not only a
mauc r oi' clcmcmary logic. but of' mo ral pcrcc ptio n.
3. Wiltgcnstein spoke o f "thc cxact al'ls." This is thc best descrip·
tion J kno'" of lhe significant bul (u him alcly) minor cxcrcisc of in·
lc rpi'Ciittion and o f cl'iticis m. Th c current st ress o n all cged
"theo •·y"- any l'ool can com pose ncologkal abstractions, any fool ca n
draw boxes and arro ws and adorn them "'ilh pseudoalgcbraic
notations-is, vcry possibly. a sympto m of that failure of crcativc
nc1·vc and that acadcmic barba1·ism which onc calls "Byzanlium ."

Alvin Sullivan. Sou1hcrn lllinois University:

1. 01•cr lhe last dccadc many thcorists. working independently,
havc arr ived at conccpls that sccm ntlcast on thc surface 10 he simila r.
lt is perhaps time 10 analyze some conce pts and nssumptions 10 see i f
synthesis is possible. An example is thc conccpt of' texL, a.~ an cntirely
new vocabulary has dcvclopcd to explain literary tcxt.S: RiiTatcn·c's
ltypogmm, Todorov's pltetw-text and geno·ltxt, Barthes' writingdegree u.ro
and Ricoe u1·'s qualificatio n of relalive degrec zero, for example.
Perhaps as a resull o f' such cffons we might aim at more precise
lahe ls fo r " kinds" of Cl'itics . S1ructut·alis1s, deconstructionists,
phenomenologists, or semio ticians constitule at present a collage if
no1 an impressionist blur. Are there more useful catcgories? What
tenets or assumptions wi ll underlie 1hem? What common criticai vo-
cabulary mighL bc uscd?
446 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

Some symhcsis may also lcL us geLback LO liLcrar y lcxts as "primary"

ones, raLhcr 1han criticai texts. Whilc c riticism o ughL to be as "good"
as liLerary 1ex1s, i1 should not rcplace (displace?) thcm. l am somewhat
abashcd at confe re nces to find leading critics misquoting texts, espe-
cially when thcir criticism isso linguis1ically o riented thal each word
and its gram matical position in a linc o f' poctry is crucial to their
conclusiuns.
2. (a) MosL of my undct·graduatc studcms scem to havc bccn
1augln c>nly fo rmalis1 a nalysis and to regard fo rmalis1. concepts as
rcifica1ions. l 1ry LO get thcm 10 regarei the 1ex1 as cxperien1ial, 10
discuss il as lilc,.•ry d iscoursc, a nd 10 discover i1s features befo rc thcy
givc Lhc m namcs. Thcsc "inductivc'' techniques, 1ho ugh hat·d ly origi·
na I, owe lO my rcading o f literary theor y 1hat which makes me ques-
lion some o f 1he assump1ions 1h:n s1udcnts g libly hold .
(b) T he gcstalion pcl'iod for wri1ing cri1icism is shc>rtct·, thc time in
••riting much lo ngcr. Usually l "see somelhing" in a t.cxl l am not surc
o f, nnd randomly read cl'ilics I likc (!ser. lianma n) 10 see if somc-
lhing conn cc1s. Publishing 1hosc conncctions is admittcdly d ifficult,
cspccially íf llcavc thc "raw" theorctical consid crations in. One pape r
slartcd off thcnrelically and turncd vc•·y soon to a lilc t·a•·y tcxt.
Editot·s objcc1ed t.hnt I "'"S "confusing" cl'i1ics anel distorting thc m.
But "'hen the thcory wcnc into foolnotcs anel thc paper bcgan "trad i-
tiunally" with a poetic litle and allusion, thc paper was acccp1cel by lhe
ncxtjout·nal I scnt it to.
3. T hc univcrsi1y where I tcach has only M.A. s1uden1s. Mos1 of
1hc m havc difliculty read ing and condc nsing thcorctical cssays. A fcw
who have bccn tmined in philosophy as wcll as litc t·aturc like to
a nalyzc thcorics, 10 placc them in contcxt, and 10 find inc;o nsistcncics.
'fh us, Lhe shon co mings belong more to my students than 10 litenory
theory. lt would bc vcry hclpf'ul i f thesc bcginning graduatc studc nts
had ava ilable a tcxt that dassitied criticai posi1ions, placcd thc m in
con1cx t, and applied ncw criticai concep1s 10 speci lic wo•·ks o f lilct·a·
turc.

Harvcy Teres, Universily of Chicago, graduate studcnt:

I. lt is diflicult to give a compre he nsive answer 10 this qucstion-
the field is too divcrse and my cxpcriencc as yet 100 limi1.ed fo r an
overall perspective. But there are ccrtain e mphascs and dircctions
which I would likc tu scc dcvelop. In particular, literat'Y theory ough1
to bcgin to exercise its proper "civil" funclion by intervcning in polil·
ical maucrs which since 1he Colei War have been isolated from thc
l. JTERARY THF.ORY IN THE UNIVERSITY: A SURVEY 447

purely literary. In the past half-ccmury we have created e xtraordi-

narily effective LOols for analyúng litc rary texts, yel wc havc lakcn
seriously nei1her lhe ex1cn1 10 which these texls are ernbedded in a
socie ty with in1ercs1s, authority, and power, nor the ex1en1 10 which
1hcsc IC XIS and o u•· criticism comprise parto f lhe poli1ical discourse o f
the na1ion, a discourse which rnight vcry well bc bcltcr understood
and cle vated thro ugh o ur imcrvcntion. Thc aim hcre ough1 not lO be
1hat litc rary thcorists become partisaus or polemicisls, bul that '"e
exercisc our rcsponsibilities as schola•·s and citizcns in an effort to
cqu ip the puhlic lo more kno"•ingly "rcad" t.hc vast nctwo•·k of polili·
cal issucs, policies. and even1s which shape their lives.
2. Bccausc literary thcory e ncouragcs us to generalize abom spc-
cific literary phcnomcna, it signilicanLiy alters ou r praclical work in
thc di•·ection of inclusivcness and interdisciplinary approachcs. We
a•·c mrely comem with dose rcadings alone, no mauer how ingeni<>us
or scnsi1ive , and we are impatiem with na..rowly focused studics 1ha1
"mcrcly wam to dca l with thc facts." I ns1cad, wc stl'ivc for far·
reaching allusions, analogics, ~ym hcscs. Wc labo•· to makc o ur work
imelligiblc as philosoph y, linguistics. history, or political science as
"'cll as litcnary criticism, and we necessarily broaden curriculum, syl-
labi, cl<lSSI' OOill discussion. bibliography, and so for1h . T his ncw spa·
ciousncss, howcver, as welcome and potcnlially liberating as i1 is, also
brings a kind of bcwildcring. cven paralyzing opcn-cndcd ncss to ou r
work, as if 10 ask a sing lc qucstion forces us lO wam 10 ask a hundred
othcrs, musl of which wc musl o mit. Ou r praclical work bccomes to a
grcat cxtcnt a placc o f vu lnerability- which is as ia should bc.
3. 8ecause American cri1ics havc embraced lite rary theory com-
parativc:ly rcccntly, a nd o ften nci1he r h ave the u·;~ining nor assimila te
the tradition o f 1hcir Europc01n coumcrparts, lhe tcaching of theory
can lack lhe depth which often accompanies long familiarity. and
cominuo us dialogue and cxpcrimcnt. As for the studems. mosl of
the m have becn trained in an educational syslcm which teaches em·
piricism and pragmatism a1 thc expcnsc of specula1io n and theory,
and in the lield o f literalllre slUdenls rcmain largcly lhe producls of
Ne•v Criticai approachcs. Thus. gradual<: students often lack lhe skills
and dcsirc for doing lheoretical work, a nd much o f whal is taught in
gradua1e the<:>ry courscs is al the rdatively low inlrodu<:tory levei.
T his is espcdally 1ruc, I might add, with rcgard to Marxist lhcory,
where misconceptions and rcsistance add to lhe difllculties. 1 expcct
this situalion will bc rcmedied in pa•·t by imegrating lheory into the
tcaching of literalure at ;ali cduc;~tional leveis, a task which yet re-
mains.
448 NEW LJTERARY HISTOR.Y

Euge ne Vance, University of Montreal, Canada:

I. Literary theory should have four principal aims. Firsl, 10 help us
10 detine the specificity o f thc poctic o r "litct·ary" text as a constitutive
clemcnt of Westet·n culture; second, LO equip t.he student of literaturc
to grasp and crilicize thc theory immancnt in the literary perfor-
mance itself; third, LO encourage the student to rethink the history of
lite ralure by perceiving the models inhcre nt lo that histo ry as bcíng,
thcmselves, histot·ical; fourth, to renew t.he production of litc rature
itsel{- lit.erary theory tcnds to bc a gcncrativc force.
2. As a mcdicvalist, I havc discovercd a vast but ncglectcd aspeCl of
medieval culture thanks to thc prioritics of structural and poststruc-
tural criticism. To thc d cgrcc that pmblc ms of langu<~gc :md o f dis-
cou•·sc annlysis may bc said to have dominated criticai theory o f the
last t1vo dccadcs, such pro ble ms coincid e with t.hc intellectual
priorities of medieval culturc itsclf, as cxprcsscd by the thrce disci-
plines of thc lritlium. A comple te rcvision o f ou•· undc rstaJtding of
medieval poctics is now in ordcr. Morcovcr, this ncw mcdicvalism
tc nds to intcrcst nonmedicvalists as muc h as mcdicvalists themsclvcs:
hc ncc. its potc ntial for changing thc sunus of medieval swdics in thc
mode m curr iculum .
S. The shortcomings of litc rary thcory stc rn frorn its hybrid nawrc:
it is ncithcr purc philosophy. purc histOIJ', purc amhmpology, a nd so
forth: no t e vc n p ure c riticism . Literary thcory is rhcre forc o ftc n
shallow. unsystc rnmic (and cvcn umhcore rical), and boring, cspecially
whcn it bc::comcs a n c nd in itsclf. lt o ft.en bccomcs a substitute for
knowlcdgc or for genuinc criticai intclligcncc. Ute rary thco•}' ha~ also
shiftcd too much attcntion away from oldcr c ulwrcs (c.g.. thc classics.
judaic studies, the Middle Ages), though I bclicve that this is a tcm-
po rary phasc.

Evan Watkins, Mic hig au State Uuiversiry:

I . Thcor·y offcrs a mcans o f rcintegrating litc t·ary swdy with the
study o f culturalrclationships o f ali k.ind s. lts aim is the n not only to
rnakc cxplicit thc assumptions which govern various and competing
stratcgics o f textual analysis, but also to work 10ward ovcrcoming thc
divisions of specialized intcllccwal labor witho ut itself bc::coming o ne
more spccialized discourse in turn. Thus theory is both intcrprctive
and productive. lts interpretive or· criticai function is, broadly, histor-
ical: theory Lries to unde rstand how literalUre and the st.udy of liten•·
t.ure come to occupy a spccific position within an e nscmble of cultural
rclations ; it explores the conceptual structures which rcsult in thc
concretc multiplicity of criticai practkes as they have dcvcloped his-
LITERARY THEOKV I N THt: UNIVERSITY: A SURVEY 44!1

torically; it asks what ideological intc•·ests inform those practiccs, what

cultural and political ends they serve; it tries to asscss thc material
cffectS o f te xts; it chart~ thc historical itincrary o f idcas. Theo•·y is also
productivc, not beca use it "produccs" an object o f study , but beca use
it attemptS to change existing cultural cunditions. lt is in this sensc
thattheory is "sclf-reflcxivc,'' as its norms o f intcrprctation, of histor-
ical knowledge and criticai understanding are rcg•·oundcd in the po-
lit ical role o f intellcctuals.
2. I carne to graduate school with a elouble major in English anel
Philosophy , and litcrary theory was immeel iatcly auractivc as a way to
ovcrcomc what had bccn a radical division in my own studies. My
dissertation was on R. 1'. Blackmur (who rcmains for me the most
complcx anel intcrcsting of thc Amcrican Nc w Critics). an aucmptto
identify the peculia•· relations bctween Ne•~ Criticai p•·actice and the
traditions of phi losophical acsthctics. My rcaeling of Crocc for the
elisscrtation later bccamc a lung chapter on Crocc in Tl1e Criticai Act,
which in turn lcd me to Cramsci and to the •·c marknblc achicvcmcntS
of' politkal c ritidsm in Iwly. fmm De Sanctis to della Volpc. Almost
f'rom the bcginning, the n, my imc rest in rcacling. in writing about,
anel in tcaching twc ntieth-ccnt.ury lit,craturc elcvelopcd within a ma-
u·ix o f theorctical undcrstaneling. Thus in answcring, I would rephrase
your qucst ion slightly: thcory is what poses thc iswc of "practical
conse<juc nccs," forces us 10 ask what we at·e doing and why, focuscs
on thc social rcsuhs o f intcllcctual activity.
3. Thc sheer quamity o f scholarship. and th e growing multiplitity
o f criticai practices, at·c very real pi'Oble ms. Yct theory too of'lc:n takes
as its objcct a wa)• to provide some conceptual "framework" for this
multiplicity instcad of trying to unelc•·stand what acwal social and
cultu•·al factors havc bf'()ught it about. As a rcsult, currcnt theory
cngagcs cvcrywhc:rc an cnti•·c complc x range of issues and values. but
in Lhe disguiscel form of (usually) compcting "fra mewod<s," "coor·
dinating hypotheses," and "radicalrcdircctions'' oftextual analysis. lt
then offcrs to studcms no c.arricula•· means LO grasp how thesc issues
have dcvclopcd, huw it is thcy linel the mselves in thc midst of an
always cxpanding bibliography. lt asks them to "coot·dinate" and "re·
direct" what they have bcen given no way of undcrstanding in Lhe lirst
placc. My graduate students havc read De•·rida bcforc cvcr cncoun-
tering Husscrl; thcy know what is "wrong" with Northt'Op Frye bcfore
they can locate his name in the card catalogue. ('fhus in onc of thc
most curious reversals of Marx, ideas are distou11ted as soon as they
bcgin to bc dissem inated .) Thcory must face squarcly thc possibility
that the mu ltiplidty of criticai practices doesn't result from the ab-
sence of organizing mcthodological f1·amcworks-of which thcre are
4:>U NEW Lrrt:RARY HISTORY

now surely enough to add lo lhe confusion-but ralher from the

historical developmem of literary study in the university and the
anomalous position of literary intcllcctuals in conlcmporary sociely.
No theory can dirccl change without also bcing historical.

Kenneth Watson, Duke University, graduate student:

I. Coleridge long ago called for a criticism truly philosophical, and
sought it in the llOmillation o f the organk gcnius <Jt thc centcr o f some
t cxts. Thc te xtu al unfoldin g of thc ce ntral genius ha s bee n
rcinscribcd subscqucntly ovcr and over. Yet cvcn Coleridgc was ncver
able to rcvcal lhe gcnius cemrally, and in his own works thc gcnius
always appcars cx-ccntrally, in thc margins uf tcxts wh ich proposc
themsclvcs as books . but are neve r thc books thcy pro pose l.hcmsclvcs
to bc; they nrc always prcludcs 10 some future inscription . In thc same
way, wc o urselvcs no minatc ccntcrs, cspccially whcn wc answcr ques-
tions about thco•·y's aims. and again in thc samc way find oursclvcs
cx-no minatcd , cxilcd from thc cohcrcncc and unity which thc nomi-
nation o f ccmcrs produccs 10 wha1 we may call a pcriphc•·y- whcrc
wc inscribc an are, then infcr a ncw circlc within which we attcmpt to
•·cplacc oursclvcs. T hcory's task is thc acutal involvcmcnt in and clab-
oration of thcsc opcration~. and m thc prcsc nt time t·cpt·cscms the
spacc of wriling.
Thcory's provisio na.l aim is to makc (and lill) this spacc. Thco ry has
neve r failcd to providc thc mcrc spacc in wh ich to writc , though it has
oftcn undct'Stond itsclf as thc t·cnunciation of thcory whilc its in-
volvcmcms havc rnadc this provision. Thc;ory makcs this spncc by
propclling a continuous t·esu·uctul'ing o f thc institutiom o f thc tcxl and
of thc pro1ocols of rcading. lls involvcmcnl is historical; psychological
and political. it claboratcs lhose opcrations which structut'C inslitu-
tio ns of lhe self' and o f socicty with regard to texts.
This mct·c space ís at thc same momcnt figurai spacc, lhe rcsult of a
historical prcssurc which dcfcrs singlc varia nu, and p1'0duccs instcad
an cntanglcmcnt o f (ncar) doublings. Thc spacc of liguration unfolds
an cconomy radically deprived o f signifieds. and thco•·y rcccives an-
othcr provisional aim in thc attcmpt to sopply thcm. But whatcver
thcor)' supplics in this attcmpt immcdiately bccomcs figurai in turn.
Theory's rcvolution occurs in a spacc of figures which •·cccdc as
theory redoubles and articulates them, so that, (or instance , sons bc-
come fathcrs and 1hen sons again, wilh a fathcrly diffcrencc. Thus thc
certa in privilege o f thc hislodcal rccnfo•·ces itsclf upon lhe linguistic
and ontological consiclerations of figuration-which in turn reenfot·ce
themsclvcs upon the historical. By this writing, thcory is markcd by a
LITERARY THF.0RY IN THt: UN IVERSI1'Y: A SURVE\' 451

ccnain aimlewu.tl, and by a richncss and complexity of functions

which simultaneously supply and dispel provisional aims.
2. Courses conccived through pcriodicity, movemcms, and
"schools," thi'Ough tradilional canons and genres, and through the
sustained s1udy of si.ngle writcrs. make up the litc•·ary curriculums of
mosl collegcs, and mos1 1eachc•·s of li1cra1urc wcrc 1rained in such
cu•·riculums, havc exam ined Lhem Lhoroughly, and cominuously
question 1he values anel assumplions on which they are based. Theory
here providcs a means for an cvolving inrcrrogation and rcvision o f
lhe frameworks through which and in which wc tcach. anda mcans of
moving that intcrrogation ou1 o f commiucc mcctings and specialized
journals and into lhe classroom, 'vherc sludcnts as well as tcachcrs can
prolit frorn and con1ributc 10 it.. Pedagogic;lily. thcre has always bcen
suflicicnl llexibili1y in 1his framcwork for the selective applica1ion of
spccializcd intcq)l'etivc me1hods. My f'ecling is lhe more thc beltcr.
Since much contcmpornry 1hcory cncourages a more o•· lcss promis·
cuous intcrwcavc of tcxtualitics, it also cncouragcs val'icd lhcorclical
approachcs to thc cxaminmion of canoni1.cd Lcx1s- and provides
some mcans for· lhe educativc cxpc•·iencr: o f evalu nting thc rcsuhs.
This irnplicarion that nny rigid dis1inc1i0n bctwccn lhe cxotcr·ic and
1he csotcric hobbles tcaching holds true for· thc writing of criticisrn.
Comemporary literary lheor·y and its mu llidisciplinar·y corr1exts
opcn ways of rcading and of qucs1ioning rcading 1ha1 li1crary cril·
icism canno1 ignore. Conscqucmly, as critics wc are forccd lo move
imo. and to some ex1cn t co·opt. any number of divergem and (lo us)
csotc•·ic discourses. Thc SufJCI'Iicial el'fcc1 of this atlcrnplcd co·oplation
is thc discomfon of thc unfamiliar ('~argon"). The effecl one nalu·
rally hopes for is a more detailed, nucnl, and resourceful addrcss to
lhe array of qucstions lhat 1ex1s confr·ont us wi1h. Thm 1his cffcct is
within rcach is dcmons1rablc wilh refcrcncc to any numbcr of rc·
ccntly published cssays in cl'i1icism.
3. Thcory CCI'tainly has an import.1nl place in g raduatc educatior1,
and cvery graduatc program should bc staffed wilh a tcachcr who
numbcrs thcory among his major intcrcsls. IL is probably mis1aken to
u·ain any studcms e:<clusiuely as t11eorists, jus1 as il would bc mistakcn
lo 1rain any s1udcn1s withoul explicil refercncc to theory. One reason
is lhatlhc markcl won't bca•· i1; anothe•· and more important is that
1hough1 itself demands 1he association o f 1heory witlr practicc. Still, no
mauer whal 1he program, every studem linally gets lhe trnining Ire
wants on his own, and establishcs his crcdemials as he 1hinks he
should, o r musl, as bcs1 hc can. Thc faull, if any, lies not with theory
or with programs, bul wilh ourselves.