Introduction: “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller
“Can ‘Literary’ Theory Exist?” by Michael R. G. Spiller first appeared in the journal Critical Survey (Vol. 4, No. 3, 1992), published by Berghahn Books. In this work, Spiller interrogates the evolution and legitimacy of literary theory, particularly as it emerged in the 1970s and 1980s through influences like structuralism and poststructuralism. Spiller critiques the philosophical roots of contemporary literary theory, linking its foundations to figures like Derrida and Heidegger while contrasting it with earlier British traditions of criticism exemplified by Eliot or Leavis. He underscores the destabilizing effect of modern theory on the concept of objective truth and stable meaning in texts, suggesting that literary theory has become less about literary specificity and more about broader philosophical and sociocultural interpretations. This shift, he argues, redefines the role of literature and its criticism, challenging traditional academic practices and aligning literary studies with philosophical hermeneutics and deconstructionism. Spiller’s analysis is crucial for understanding the contentious intersections of literature, philosophy, and criticism in late 20th-century academia.
Summary of “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller
- Shift in Literary Theory from Traditional to Contemporary
Spiller outlines how contemporary literary theory, influenced by figures like Derrida and Heidegger, diverges from traditional British and American critical practices, focusing on abstract and philosophical inquiries into meaning rather than the works of native authors such as Eliot and Coleridge (Spiller, 1992, p. 257). - The Role of Structuralism and Poststructuralism
Structuralist and poststructuralist thinkers, such as Saussure and Derrida, questioned the stability of meaning and truth, arguing that meaning is contingent on social and linguistic structures or is constantly in flux. This challenges the foundation of traditional literary criticism (Spiller, 1992, pp. 258-259). - Hermeneutics as a Bridge Between Philosophy and Literature
Spiller discusses hermeneutics—the theory of text interpretation—as a recurring disruptor in literary theory. He references historical examples, such as Aristotle’s mimetic theory, Origen’s polysemy of biblical texts, and Coleridge’s symbolic approach to text-world relationships, as precedents to Derrida’s deconstruction (Spiller, 1992, pp. 259-260). - Derrida’s Deconstruction and its Radical Implications
Derrida’s work emphasizes that meaning is not fixed and that origins of meaning are constructs within signifying systems. His idea that “there is no text, only interpretation” destabilizes traditional notions of authorship and objective truth (Spiller, 1992, p. 260). - Philosophical Overlap and Challenges to Literary Criticism
The infusion of philosophical ideas into literary studies has blurred disciplinary boundaries. Critics like Derrida and Lacan have made literary theory less about interpreting texts within a real-world framework and more about engaging with abstract philosophical questions of being and truth (Spiller, 1992, p. 261). - Cultural and Political Reactions to Theory
Spiller notes the hostility towards modern literary theory, often framed as an attack on “common sense” by the media. Critics like Alan Bloom and commentators in The Sunday Times equated deconstruction with nihilism and political radicalism (Spiller, 1992, pp. 257-258). - Destabilization of Literature’s Autonomy
The incorporation of disciplines such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, and linguistics into literary theory has redefined literature’s role, threatening its autonomy as a discipline or, conversely, liberating it from traditional constraints (Spiller, 1992, p. 258). - Future of Literary Theory
Spiller suggests that literary theory, as traditionally understood, no longer exists in isolation. Its evolution has aligned it more with philosophical inquiry, making it an interdisciplinary field concerned with questions of discourse and meaning (Spiller, 1992, pp. 260-261).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Reference in the Article |
| Hermeneutics | The theory of text interpretation, particularly examining the relationship between texts and the world, focusing on meaning and context. | Spiller (1992, p. 259) discusses its historical roots in Aristotle, Origen, and Coleridge. |
| Mimetic Theory | Aristotle’s idea that all art imitates human action and the world. | Spiller (1992, p. 259) refers to Aristotle’s Poetics. |
| Polysemy | The notion that texts can have multiple meanings, as introduced by Origen in biblical interpretation. | Spiller (1992, p. 260) highlights Origen’s literal, moral, and spiritual meanings. |
| Deconstruction | Derrida’s concept that meaning is unstable, language unfixes itself, and texts have no definitive interpretation or origin. | Spiller (1992, pp. 258-259) explores Derrida’s impact on poststructuralism. |
| Structuralism | The view that meaning is a product of socially constructed structures, with an arbitrary connection between signs and their meanings. | Spiller (1992, p. 258) references Saussure and structuralist critiques of meaning. |
| Poststructuralism | An extension of structuralism that posits meaning is in constant flux and challenges the fixity of language and interpretation. | Spiller (1992, pp. 258-259) contrasts it with structuralism. |
| Logocentrism | Derrida’s critique of Western philosophy’s privileging of fixed, authoritative meanings over the fluidity of textual interpretation. | Spiller (1992, p. 260) mentions Derrida’s challenge to fixed origins. |
| Intertextuality | The concept that texts derive meaning through their relationships with other texts rather than their isolated content. | Implied in Spiller’s discussion of the interconnected nature of meaning (1992, p. 258). |
| Authorial Intention | The traditional belief that a text’s meaning is tied to the author’s intended message. | Spiller (1992, p. 260) critiques this as vulnerable to poststructuralist theories. |
| Postmodernism | A broader philosophical framework that questions grand narratives, objective truth, and definitive meaning in literature and other disciplines. | Spiller (1992, p. 260) links this to Derrida, Heidegger, and Ricoeur. |
| Contingency of Meaning | The idea that meaning is provisional and dependent on relational or contextual factors. | Spiller (1992, p. 259) discusses its role in structuralist and poststructuralist theories. |
| Exegesis | The practice of detailed critical analysis of a text’s meaning. | Spiller (1992, p. 259) contrasts it with hermeneutics. |
| Cultural Criticism | The study of texts in their cultural and sociopolitical contexts, often aligned with radical political movements. | Spiller (1992, p. 258) connects this to feminist and political correctness movements. |
| Philosophical Hermeneutics | An approach focusing on fundamental questions of being and truth, influenced by Heidegger and Derrida. | Spiller (1992, p. 259) relates this to contemporary critiques in literary theory. |
Contribution of “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller to Literary Theory/Theories
- Critique of Traditional Literary Criticism
Spiller critiques traditional literary criticism for its reliance on native authors and simplistic approaches to meaning, arguing that it lacks the philosophical depth introduced by contemporary theories (Spiller, 1992, pp. 257-258). - Integration of Hermeneutics into Literary Theory
By highlighting the role of hermeneutics, Spiller bridges the gap between literature and philosophy, emphasizing how interpretation frameworks, such as Aristotle’s mimetic theory and Origen’s polysemy, have shaped literary criticism (Spiller, 1992, pp. 259-260). - Highlighting the Instability of Meaning
Spiller’s discussion of structuralist and poststructuralist approaches underscores the shift from stable, author-driven meanings to the contingent and relational nature of meaning in texts, contributing to theories of textuality (Spiller, 1992, p. 258). - Exploration of Deconstruction’s Role in Literary Criticism
Spiller illustrates how Derrida’s deconstruction challenges the concepts of logocentrism, fixed origins, and definitive meanings, positioning deconstruction as central to postmodern literary theory (Spiller, 1992, p. 260). - Connection Between Texts and Sociopolitical Movements
By linking poststructuralism with feminist and political correctness movements, Spiller situates literary theory within broader cultural and political discourses, enriching cultural criticism (Spiller, 1992, p. 258). - Interdisciplinary Expansion of Literary Studies
Spiller highlights how contemporary literary theory incorporates insights from philosophy, anthropology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and linguistics, redefining literature as an interdisciplinary field (Spiller, 1992, p. 258). - Challenges to Authorial Intention and Objectivity
The article critiques the reliance on authorial intent and the idea of objective truth in traditional criticism, aligning with theories that prioritize textual autonomy and reader interpretation (Spiller, 1992, pp. 259-260). - Philosophical Foundations of Modern Literary Theory
Spiller emphasizes the philosophical underpinnings of contemporary theory, such as Heidegger’s critique of reliable origins and Derrida’s destabilization of presence, positioning these ideas as foundational to postmodern literary theory (Spiller, 1992, pp. 259-261). - Destabilization of Literature’s Autonomy
By showing how structuralist and poststructuralist critiques question literature’s independence as a discipline, Spiller contributes to theories that view literature as a part of larger discursive and cultural systems (Spiller, 1992, pp. 258-259).
Examples of Critiques Through “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller
| Literary Work | Critique Approach | Explanation from the Article |
| Shakespeare’s Works | Destabilization of Meaning | Spiller discusses how the history of Shakespearean production reflects the idea that texts may not have fixed meanings (Spiller, 1992, p. 260). |
| King Lear | Hermeneutic Interpretation | Used as an example to explore how texts are situated in the world and what their relation to the world signifies (Spiller, 1992, p. 259). |
| The Bible | Polysemous Text Analysis | Referenced through Origen’s idea of literal, moral, and spiritual meanings, highlighting the multiplicity of textual interpretations (Spiller, 1992, p. 260). |
| Coleridge’s Poetry | Symbolism and Text-World Relations | Coleridge’s texts are critiqued as symbolic reenactments of the mind’s relationship with the cosmos (Spiller, 1992, pp. 259-260). |
| Tragic Drama (General) | Mimetic Theory | Aristotle’s concept that tragedy and other literary forms imitate human action and the world (Spiller, 1992, p. 259). |
| Literary Texts (General) | Deconstruction of Authorship and Objectivity | Derrida’s critique of fixed origins challenges the traditional reliance on authorial intention and objective validation (Spiller, 1992, p. 260). |
| Modern Literary Criticism | Philosophical Engagement with Texts | Philosophical influences, like Heidegger’s and Derrida’s theories, are applied to destabilize the autonomy and traditional interpretations of texts (Spiller, 1992, p. 259). |
Criticism Against “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller
- Ambiguity in Defining Literary Theory
Spiller critiques the very existence of literary theory but does not offer a clear, unified definition or alternative framework, leaving the term’s scope vague. - Overemphasis on Philosophical Influence
The article heavily leans on philosophical figures like Derrida and Heidegger, potentially overshadowing the specific contributions of literary scholars and undervaluing literature’s unique characteristics. - Neglect of Practical Literary Criticism
By focusing on abstract and philosophical discussions, Spiller’s argument may alienate those who value traditional, text-based approaches to literary criticism. - Dismissal of Traditional Criticism
Spiller downplays the value of traditional criticism (e.g., the works of Eliot, Leavis) as overly simplistic, which might undermine their historical importance and relevance to modern readers. - Exaggeration of the “Death” of Literary Theory
The claim that literary theory “no longer exists” risks being hyperbolic, as it ignores the ongoing development and practical application of literary theories in academia. - Limited Engagement with Diverse Theoretical Perspectives
While structuralism and poststructuralism are thoroughly explored, the article lacks engagement with other significant schools of thought, such as Marxism, feminism, or postcolonial theory, which continue to shape literary studies. - Potential Elitism in Approach
Spiller’s reliance on dense philosophical discourse may make the article inaccessible to non-specialists, limiting its utility for a broader audience, including undergraduate students. - Insufficient Examples from Literary Works
Though references are made to Shakespeare, the Bible, and Coleridge, the article does not provide detailed textual analyses, which could strengthen its theoretical claims. - Inadequate Attention to Contemporary Cultural Contexts
The article critiques media and societal reactions to theory but does not adequately address how cultural and political factors actively shape contemporary literary studies.
Representative Quotations from “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “In a very real sense, literary theory does not any longer exist.” (p. 256) | Spiller argues that contemporary theory has evolved so far beyond traditional notions of literary theory that its independence as a discipline is in doubt. |
| “Meaning was unconsciously embodied in the text, any text.” (p. 257) | Reflects the poststructuralist idea that meaning is inherent in texts but not tied to the author’s intentions or a singular interpretation. |
| “Poststructuralists propose that meaning itself is in continual flux.” (p. 258) | Highlights the core poststructuralist argument that meaning is unstable and constantly renegotiated through language and context. |
| “Deconstruction says that texts have many meanings that are independent of the author’s conscious meaning.” (p. 257) | This summarizes Derrida’s perspective, challenging the traditional emphasis on authorial intention as the definitive guide to meaning. |
| “Hermeneutics deals with the theory of interpretation of texts: it asks how texts are situated in the world.” (p. 259) | Explains hermeneutics as the foundational framework for understanding the interaction between texts and their sociocultural contexts. |
| “The text seeks to place us in its meaning.” (p. 260) | Drawn from Paul Ricoeur’s theory, this suggests that texts actively engage readers, shaping their interpretations rather than passively transmitting meaning. |
| “As long as the world and the subject lay outside the text, as validating presences, literary criticism could relate the text unproblematically to these.” (p. 261) | Critiques traditional literary criticism for its reliance on external references, which poststructuralist thought has disrupted. |
| “Structuralists propose that meaning is the product of socially produced structures.” (p. 258) | A concise description of structuralism’s central premise that meaning is constructed through systems of signs. |
| “The infusion of disciplines such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, and linguistics into literary theory has redefined literature.” (p. 258) | Highlights the interdisciplinary nature of modern literary theory, which has expanded its scope beyond traditional boundaries. |
| “There is no text, only interpretation.” (p. 260) | References Derrida’s famous assertion, emphasizing the poststructuralist view of the instability and subjectivity of textual meaning. |
Suggested Readings: “Can “Literary” Theory Exist?” Michael R. G. Spiller
- SPILLER, MICHAEL R. G. “Can ‘Literary’ Theory Exist?” Critical Survey, vol. 4, no. 3, 1992, pp. 256–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41555669. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
- Nicholas O. Pagan. “The Evolution of Literary Theory and the Literary Mind.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2013, pp. 157–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.15.2.0157. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
- Rowlett, John L., editor. “Literary History and Literary Theory.” Genre Theory and Historical Change: Theoretical Essays of Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia Press, 2017, pp. 263–75. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xtv6.19. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
- Minnis, Alastair. “Literary Theory and Literary Practice.” Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages, 2nd ed., University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010, pp. 160–210. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhqd9.12. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.