Defining theory
Jonathan Culler defines literary theory as "the systematic account of the nature of literature and the methods for analyzing it" (1). But then, he quickly adds that we won't see just that kind of theorizing in contemporary literary studies (especially after the '60s). Culler says the term "theory" in contemporary literary studies refers to a genre or "a body of thinking and writing whose limits are exceedingly hard to define" but which "designate[s] works that succeed in challenging and reorienting thinking in fields other than those to which they apparently belong" (3). He refers to Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality and Jacques Derrida's critique of Rousseau's Confessions as examples of what is being done in literary theory nowadays. While Foucault's work provides a framework and Derrida's a method for reading, both texts depart from the usual notion of what literary theorizing is. Culler asserts that when contemporary literary scholars mention theory, they actually refer to a mode of critiquing "common sense" or what has become natural. Theory is reflexive thinking, questioning "the categories we use in making sense of things, in literature and in other discursive practices." It is "analytical and speculative" as well as "interdisciplinary" (affected by and having effects in discourses outside literature) (14-15). Terry Eagleton, in his preface to the anniversary edition of Literary Theory: An Introduction, echoes Culler by saying that "literary theory is a kind of metadiscourse ... it adopts a critical stance to other forms of critical analysis" (viii).
Vincent Leitch et al., in their introduction to the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, point out that:
"This dramatic reversal, which occurred gradually over the course of the twentieth century, means that the history of criticism and theory increasingly provides the general framework for studying literature and culture in colleges and universities. Some literary scholars and writers deplore the shift toward theory, regarding it as a turn away from literature and its central concerns. These 'antitheorist,' as they are called, advocate a return to studying literature for itself -- yet however refreshing this position may at first appear, it has problems: it itself presupposes a definition of literature, and it promotes a certain way of scrutinizing literature ('for itself'). In other words, the antitheory position turns out to rely on unexamined -- and debatable -- theories of literature and criticism. What theory demonstrates, in this case and in others, is that there is no position free of theory, not even the one called 'common sense'" (1). So how do we define literature? 
|
Topics
1. Orientation 2. Criticism, theory, and literature3. Literature and the linguistic turn
References:
 Theory Defined by Nino Soria de Veyra is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.  |
