John Holbo and the gang at the Valve are running a book event on theory’s empire, an edited volume attacking critical theory and its dominance in literary studies (and aligned fields in the humanities).
My initial thought is "Don’t they realize that film studies has already had an attack on Theory"? David Bordwell and Noel Coward put out the Post-Theory anthology about a decade ago. And while respondents are trying to figure out which part of the moving target to discuss, Bordwell usefully referred to SLAB theory - an amalgam of Saussure-Lacan-Althusser-Barthes that guides the way film scholars approach film. However, for all of Bordwell’s stature in the field, Post-Theory didn’t topple theory; at best it was part of many critiques of 70s film theory and of cultural studies that led to the current methodological pluralism. Call it Post-Post-Theory. I’ve yet to read Theory’s Empire, but I suspect their dissent may meet a similar fate.
Mind you, the traps critical theory often falls into (argument by reverential citation, over-abstraction from the object of study) strike me as far more excessive in literary studies than in film studies (my unbiased opinion). As usual, I find myself somewhere in between the anti-Theory crusades of the Valve and the defenses of the Theory camp, or halfway between John Holbo and Michael Berube. Despite Berube’s rebuttal, Holbo is on to something when he diagnoses a tendency for critical theorists to treat anti-Theoretical arguments as anti-theoretical ones. At the same time, he should acknowledge that frequently the anti-Theory camp are anti-theoretical; they prefer a belletristic appreciation of Literature as is, without being sullied by rigorous academic study. As a defense of the ideas of theory, Berube’s post is disengenous to point out that the quality of the theoretical work of lesser known scholars obviates the larger argument of the anti-Theorists; presumably, these scholars might be doing excellent work in another theoretical frame. At the same time, he’s right: once you stop taking umbrage at the philosophical assault that Theory represents and start looking at SLAB as an intellectual method that allows you to study cultural artefacts in productive ways, the issue is a little different. My defense of SLAB theory lies precisely along those lines; the very constitution of a "text" that can be subjected to non-thematic, non-normative interpretation is a heuristic device that’s incredibly useful and is going to be hard to shake off. For all the excesses done in the name of Theory, I’m not sure why Barthes’ S/Z or Christine Gledhill’s essay on Klute can’t continue to inform the practice of literary and film studies.
Perhaps I come closest to the sentiment of the Valve’s Jonathan Mayhew, who writes,
I can applaud many "anti-theoretical" arguments, to the extent that they echo all the reason I hate theory. At the same time I wouldn’t trade Richard Levin for Eve Sedgwick. In other words, I still think there needs to be a way to preserve what I love about theory while working to solve some of the problems that make me hate theory. I don’t know whether this is possible.
It is possible, if we try to clarify what Theory has done well (methodological reflection, constitution of the "text") while we open up to some valid criticisms.
P.S. Is this the sort of thing Kevin Drum was talking about when he warned those planning on the academic job market to be careful about blogging under their real names?
No comments have been added to this post yet.