Category: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

“Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran was first published in Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies (Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1991, pp. 83-99) by the University of Toronto Press. This seminal article reshaped the academic discourse on diaspora by proposing a nuanced framework to understand the concept, expanding its usage beyond its historical association with Jewish exile. Safran articulated six defining characteristics of diasporic communities, emphasizing their shared memory of a homeland, feelings of alienation in host societies, and enduring connections to their ancestral land. The work critically examined the “myth of return” as both a source of cultural cohesion and a lens to interpret diasporic identity. Safran’s analysis provided a foundation for interdisciplinary studies in literature, cultural theory, and political science by conceptualizing diasporas as dynamic entities that bridge homeland, host society, and global networks. This paper remains a cornerstone in understanding transnational identity and diaspora’s role in contemporary society and culture.

Summary of “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

• Conceptualizing Diaspora: Safran critiques the limited scope of diaspora studies in scholarly discussions, emphasizing its expansion beyond its traditional association with Jewish exile. He proposes a framework defining diaspora through six core characteristics, including dispersion, collective memory of a homeland, alienation from host societies, and the myth of eventual return. This expanded conceptualization positions diasporas as metaphorical representations of various expatriate and minority communities (Safran, 1991, pp. 83-84).
• Key Features of Diasporic Communities: Safran outlines the criteria for identifying diasporic communities: historical displacement from a homeland, collective memory, perceptions of alienation, and commitment to homeland restoration. He argues that these features help sustain ethnic consciousness and solidarity, using examples such as the Jewish, Armenian, and Palestinian diasporas (p. 85).
• Comparison Across Diasporas: Different diasporas, such as the Jewish and Armenian, share parallels in their collective memory and cultural preservation, while others, like the Maghrebi and Turkish communities, differ due to their voluntary migration and integration challenges in host countries. The article juxtaposes the “ideal type” of diaspora with variations shaped by sociopolitical contexts (pp. 86-88).
• The Myth of Return: The myth of return is central to diaspora identity. It solidifies group consciousness despite its often eschatological nature. This myth functions as a cultural and psychological anchor rather than a practical objective. For example, Armenians and Jews maintain this myth differently based on their historical and geopolitical realities (pp. 89-90).
• Diaspora-Host-Homeland Triangular Relationship: Safran highlights a complex triangular relationship between diasporas, host societies, and homelands. Host countries may exploit diaspora identities for political ends, as seen in the Soviet Union’s manipulation of ethnic groups. Similarly, homelands may utilize diaspora support while displaying ambivalence toward their return (pp. 91-93).
• Challenges to Integration and Identity: Diasporas often test the pluralism and integration policies of host societies. Safran argues that host societies’ cultural and ideological foundations significantly influence diaspora consciousness. This dynamic is evident in the varying experiences of Jewish, Maghrebi, and Chinese communities in different countries (pp. 94-96).
• Open Questions and Research Agenda: Safran concludes by identifying critical questions for future research, including the typology of diasporas, the factors sustaining their consciousness, and their role in host-homeland relations. He emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary approaches to address the sociopolitical and cultural dimensions of diasporas (pp. 96-99).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Relevance/Context
Diaspora	Communities dispersed from their original homeland who maintain connections through collective memory, myths, and aspirations.	Expanded beyond Jewish exile to include other ethnic and expatriate communities.
Homeland Myth	The belief in an ancestral homeland as the true ideal home, often accompanied by the hope or myth of eventual return.	Strengthens collective identity and solidarity within diaspora communities, even when return is impractical or symbolic.
Dispersion	The historical or forced movement of a population from a central homeland to two or more peripheral regions.	A key characteristic distinguishing diasporas from other migrant or minority groups.
Collective Memory	Shared historical memories about the homeland, including its physical, cultural, and political attributes.	Critical for maintaining identity and continuity across generations within the diaspora.
Alienation	A sense of being unaccepted or marginalized by the host society, resulting in feelings of partial insulation and detachment.	Often fuels a diasporic identity and solidarity against perceived exclusion by the host society.
Triangular Relationship	The complex interactions between diaspora communities, host societies, and their homelands.	Highlights how host countries and homelands may manipulate diaspora identities for political or cultural objectives.
Ideal Type	A conceptual model, like the Jewish diaspora, used to define the prototypical characteristics of a diaspora.	Used as a benchmark to analyze similarities and differences among various diasporas.
Ethnocommunal Consciousness	A collective identity shaped by historical, cultural, and emotional ties to the homeland.	Essential for preserving cultural identity and resistance to assimilation.
Host Society	The country or region where a diaspora community resides, often facing challenges of integration and acceptance.	Influences the development and persistence of diaspora consciousness and identity.
Middleman Function	A socio-economic role in which diaspora communities act as intermediaries in trade, commerce, and cultural exchange.	Observed in Jewish, Armenian, and Chinese diasporas, often associated with both opportunity and vulnerability.
Assimilationism vs. Ethnopolitical Mobilization	The spectrum of identity maintenance, ranging from full assimilation into the host culture to active political efforts to preserve and promote diaspora identity.	Illustrates the diversity of responses within and among diasporas to host-country dynamics and homeland connections.
Diaspora Consciousness	An intellectual and emotional awareness of a shared identity and relationship with the homeland.	Central to the persistence and cohesion of diaspora communities over time.
Expatriate Community	Groups of individuals living outside their homeland who may or may not share the characteristics of a diaspora.	Differentiated from diaspora by the lack of enduring myths and collective identity centered on a homeland.

Contribution of “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran to Literary Theory/Theories

---

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Contribution: Safran’s work enhances the understanding of displacement, alienation, and the persistence of colonial legacies in the formation of diasporic identities.
• Key Insights from the Article: The collective memory of oppression, the alienation from host societies, and the myth of return resonate with postcolonial critiques of marginalization and cultural hybridity (Safran, 1991, pp. 83-85).
• Relevance to Theory: Postcolonial theorists like Edward Said (Orientalism) and Homi Bhabha (The Location of Culture) discuss similar concepts of cultural displacement and the construction of hybrid identities within diasporic contexts.

---

2. Cultural Memory Studies

• Contribution: Safran emphasizes the role of shared memory in maintaining diaspora identities, which intersects with the study of cultural memory in literature.
• Key Insights from the Article: The retention of historical memories about the homeland—its achievements and traumas—creates a framework for analyzing how literature reconstructs and preserves these memories (p. 84).
• Relevance to Theory: Scholars like Jan Assmann (Cultural Memory and Early Civilization) highlight how collective memory influences cultural narratives, aligning with Safran’s analysis of diaspora’s reliance on myth and memory.

---

3. Identity and Subjectivity in Literary Studies

• Contribution: The article provides a model for understanding the fractured and multifaceted identities of diasporic subjects.
• Key Insights from the Article: Diasporas are shaped by a continuum of identity from assimilation to ethnopolitical mobilization, offering a lens to analyze characters navigating multiple allegiances in literature (p. 85-86).
• Relevance to Theory: Judith Butler’s exploration of performative identities in Gender Trouble complements Safran’s discussion on how diasporic identities are negotiated within cultural and political constraints.

---

4. Nationalism and Transnationalism in Literature

• Contribution: Safran’s discussion of diasporas as transnational communities critiques the nation-state model and its limitations in encompassing dispersed identities.
• Key Insights from the Article: The triangular relationship between diaspora, homeland, and host society challenges nationalist discourses and explores the diasporic subject as inherently transnational (pp. 91-93).
• Relevance to Theory: Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities and Gayatri Spivak’s work on global capitalism and subaltern identities echo Safran’s critiques of nationalism and highlight literature’s role in negotiating these tensions.

---

5. Trauma Studies

• Contribution: Safran’s focus on the diasporic experience of displacement and the myth of return intersects with the analysis of trauma in literature.
• Key Insights from the Article: The article illustrates how diasporas’ collective myths and memories are rooted in historical trauma, such as the Armenian genocide and Jewish persecution (pp. 86-87).
• Relevance to Theory: Cathy Caruth’s Unclaimed Experience and Dominick LaCapra’s Writing History, Writing Trauma provide frameworks for understanding how diasporic literature engages with unresolved historical and cultural trauma.

---

6. Hybrid and Diasporic Identities in Postmodern Literature

• Contribution: Safran’s work on diaspora consciousness aligns with postmodern theories of fragmented and hybrid identities.
• Key Insights from the Article: The article suggests that diaspora consciousness emerges from the interplay of alienation, cultural memory, and myth, creating a space for hybrid identities (pp. 84-85).
• Relevance to Theory: Theories by Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy on diasporic hybridity and the “Black Atlantic” echo Safran’s emphasis on the fluid, relational nature of diasporic identity in literature.

---

7. Migration and Mobility Studies

• Contribution: Safran’s article provides a foundational lens for exploring themes of mobility and displacement in literary narratives.
• Key Insights from the Article: The dynamics of migration and settlement inform the sociocultural and political dimensions of diasporic narratives (pp. 86-88).
• Relevance to Theory: John Urry’s Mobilities and literary studies on migration by Salman Rushdie and Jhumpa Lahiri further exemplify the intersection of mobility and identity, grounded in Safran’s analysis.

Examples of Critiques Through “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

Work and Author	Application of Safran’s Concepts	Specific Critiques
The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri	Explores alienation, cultural memory, and identity struggles in the Indian-American diaspora.	Safran’s idea of collective memory (p. 84) critiques Gogol’s detachment from his ancestral culture, highlighting the generational conflict over cultural preservation.
Season of Migration to the North by Tayeb Salih	Examines postcolonial displacement and the triangular relationship between homeland, host society, and self.	Safran’s triangular relationship (p. 91) critiques Mustafa’s conflicting ties to Sudan and England, emphasizing his alienation in both settings.
Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie	Highlights migration, identity, and the challenges of returning to a homeland after diaspora experience.	Safran’s “myth of return” (p. 85) critiques Ifemelu’s mixed feelings about returning to Nigeria, emphasizing its role in reshaping diaspora consciousness.
White Teeth by Zadie Smith	Investigates intergenerational identity and the myth of return in the British-Jamaican and Bangladeshi diasporas.	Safran’s notion of the “myth of return” (p. 85) critiques characters’ attempts to reconcile their ancestral traditions with the pressures of modern assimilation.

Criticism Against “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

• Overgeneralization of Diaspora Characteristics
  Safran’s framework has been critiqued for its reliance on a rigid set of criteria, such as collective memory and the myth of return. Critics argue that many diasporas, particularly modern or hybridized ones, may not fit neatly into these categories, leading to exclusion or oversimplification.
• Limited Focus on Postmodern Diasporas
  The article primarily examines historical and traditional diasporas, such as Jewish and Armenian communities, while offering limited exploration of contemporary, fluid, and transnational diaspora identities that challenge fixed notions of homeland and return.
• Neglect of Host Society Dynamics
  Critics suggest that Safran places disproportionate emphasis on the homeland and diaspora relationship while neglecting the evolving role of host societies in shaping diasporic identities, particularly in multicultural or globalized contexts.
• Static Conception of Identity
  Safran’s approach has been critiqued for implying that diaspora identities are static, rooted in collective memory and myths. Critics argue that diasporic identities are dynamic and continuously negotiated through interactions with both host and homeland cultures.
• Western-Centric Perspective
  The framework has been criticized for predominantly using examples from Eurocentric or Western-dominated diasporas while offering less insight into diasporas originating from non-Western or indigenous contexts.
• Insufficient Exploration of Intersectionality
  Critics point out that Safran’s model does not adequately address the intersection of race, gender, class, and religion in shaping diasporic experiences, thereby oversimplifying complex identity negotiations.
• Overemphasis on Homeland Attachment
  The focus on the myth of return has been critiqued as overly romanticized and not reflective of the lived realities of many diasporas, where attachment to the homeland may weaken or transform into a symbolic rather than practical connection.
• Limited Agency of Diasporic Communities
  Safran’s work has been critiqued for portraying diasporas as reactive entities defined by host or homeland conditions, rather than active agents reshaping their environments and identities.

Representative Quotations from “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Diaspora communities are expatriate minority communities whose members share several of the following characteristics.”	Introduces the core framework for defining diasporas, emphasizing shared traits among dispersed communities.
“They retain a collective memory, vision, or myth about their original homeland—its physical location, history, and achievements.”	Highlights the importance of cultural and historical memory in sustaining diasporic identity and cohesion.
“Diaspora consciousness is maintained by the belief that they are not—and perhaps cannot be—fully accepted by their host society.”	Explains the psychological and sociological underpinnings of diasporic solidarity rooted in a sense of alienation.
“The myth of return becomes a mechanism to sustain ethnic consciousness when other cohesive factors weaken.”	Discusses how the idea of return to a homeland preserves identity even when ties to religion, language, or community decline.
“Diasporas are shaped by a triangular relationship between the homeland, the diaspora, and the host society.”	Identifies the interaction among these three entities as central to the dynamics of diasporic existence.
“The Armenian diaspora shares similarities with the Jewish diaspora, including memories of persecution, dispersion, and a middleman role in host societies.”	Draws historical and social parallels between these two prominent diasporas, emphasizing shared experiences.
“The myth of return often serves more as a symbolic or eschatological concept than a literal objective for many diasporas.”	Points to the symbolic role of the idea of returning to a homeland, questioning its practicality in contemporary diasporic contexts.
“The host society may emphasize diaspora sentiments for its own purposes, such as encouraging or suppressing cultural or political expressions.”	Discusses how host societies manipulate diaspora identities for political or social reasons, complicating assimilation or cultural maintenance.
“Homelands often view their diasporas with mixed feelings, appreciating their support but disdaining their cultural transformations.”	Examines the tension between homeland and diaspora communities regarding cultural authenticity and modernization.
“The concept of diaspora extends beyond ethnicity to include religious, ideological, and economic forms of dispersion.”	Expands the understanding of diaspora to encompass varied forms of community and identity beyond ethnic frameworks.

Suggested Readings: “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return” by William Safran

1. Safran, William. “The Jewish Diaspora in a Comparative and Theoretical Perspective.” Israel Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 2005, pp. 36–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30245753. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
2. Clifford, James. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 3, 1994, pp. 302–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/656365. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
3. Baser, Bahar, and Ashok Swain. “DIASPORAS AS PEACEMAKERS: THIRD PARTY MEDIATION IN HOMELAND CONFLICTS.” International Journal on World Peace, vol. 25, no. 3, 2008, pp. 7–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20752844. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
4. Oonk, Gijsbert. “Global Indian Diasporas: Exploring Trajectories of Migration and Theory.” Global Indian Diasporas: Exploring Trajectories of Migration and Theory, edited by Gijsbert Oonk, Amsterdam University Press, 2007, pp. 9–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n1bq.4. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

“Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman first appeared in the Fall 2004 issue of Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature (Volume 23, No. 2), published by the University of Tulsa. This seminal work examines the concept of “home” within the context of migration, dislocation, and cultural hybridity. Friedman explores the poetics of diaspora, focusing on how identity, intimacy, and cultural belonging are constantly negotiated through the tensions of being “in-between” places and traditions. Her analysis integrates literary, feminist, and postcolonial theories, making the essay pivotal in understanding the relationship between migration and identity formation. By dissecting narratives of exile, displacement, and rootedness, Friedman expands the discourse on globalization and multiculturalism, offering profound insights into the psychological and cultural implications of movement and resettlement in contemporary literature and theory.

Summary of “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key References in the Article
Diaspora	A state of displacement, involving cultural, geographical, and psychological dislocation. Diaspora challenges notions of fixed identities and homes.	Saleema’s story; references to Homi Bhabha and Gloria Anzaldúa (p. 189, 271).
Home as Utopia/Nowhere	The paradoxical idea that “home” is both an idealized space of belonging and a concept that is perpetually unattainable.	Linguistic play on “nowhere” and “now here” (p. 192).
Affective Body	The body as a site of emotional and cultural inscription, marked by sensations of pleasure, pain, and identity struggles.	Homi Bhabha’s framework on bodies and social authority (p. 190).
Borderlands	The psychological and physical spaces of in-betweenness where individuals negotiate identities that transcend borders.	Gloria Anzaldúa’s reflections on cultural hybridity and identity (p. 21).
Homesickness	The dual longing for and estrangement from home, representing both desire and alienation.	Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz; Freud’s uncanny concept (p. 191-193).
Partition of the Self	The emotional and cultural fragmentation experienced due to geopolitical or personal dislocations.	Narratives of Indian Partition, such as Jyotirmoyee Devi’s The River Churning (p. 200).
Unhomeliness	The condition of feeling alien or displaced within one’s home or culture; linked to Freud’s concept of the uncanny.	Homi Bhabha’s analysis of the “unhomely” (p. 271).
Writing as Home	The act of writing as a process of reclaiming identity and reconstructing an imagined sense of home.	Reflections by Caryl Phillips and Adrienne Rich (p. 206-207).
Cultural Hybridity	The coexistence and interaction of diverse cultural identities within diasporic individuals.	Chandra Talpade Mohanty and Saleema’s navigation of Pakistani-American identity (p. 190).
Imaginary Homeland	The idealized and often mythical conception of a homeland, constructed through memory and longing.	Salman Rushdie’s concept of imagined homelands; Caryl Phillips (p. 206).
Violence on the Body	The physical and symbolic violence experienced by bodies in patriarchal, colonial, or diasporic contexts.	Edwidge Danticat’s Breath, Eyes, Memory (p. 154).
Rapture of Writing Rupture	The transformative power of writing to heal and articulate the fragmented self caused by dislocation.	Virginia Woolf and Susan Friedman’s reflections on writing as survival (p. 207).
Temporal and Spatial Dislocation	The experience of being unmoored from a specific time or place, creating a sense of instability.	Mira Nair’s films and migrant narratives (p. 196).
Exile	A state of being away from one’s home, often imposed, fostering a sense of estrangement and creativity.	Edward Said’s reflections on exile and belonging (p. 204).

Contribution of “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

Literary Work	Critique Through “Bodies on the Move”
Breath, Eyes, Memory by Edwidge Danticat	Friedman critiques how Danticat’s novel portrays the intersection of personal and cultural trauma. The Haitian custom of “testing” parallels state violence, emphasizing the body as a site of inherited trauma and cultural resistance.
The River Churning by Jyotirmoyee Devi	Explores Partition of India as a metaphor for dislocation. Friedman analyzes how the protagonist’s trauma reflects the violence of national and cultural identity rupture. The narrative examines exile and societal rejection post-Partition.
The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros	Examines Esperanza’s search for autonomy and identity. Friedman connects this quest to diasporic longing, showing how home is simultaneously a site of belonging and estrangement, revealing identity in motion.
What the Body Remembers by Shauna Singh Baldwin	Critiques how Partition reshapes personal and collective identities. Friedman highlights the juxtaposition of displacement and empowerment, particularly how dislocation can foster resilience and self-redefinition.

Criticism Against “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

• Overgeneralization of Diaspora Experiences
  Critics argue that Friedman tends to generalize the diasporic experience, often glossing over the nuanced differences between forced displacement (e.g., refugees) and voluntary migration (e.g., expatriates).
• Focus on Elite Diasporas
  The analysis heavily features examples from privileged or elite diasporic communities, such as Saleema, whose challenges are cushioned by wealth and status, potentially neglecting the struggles of marginalized or economically disadvantaged migrants.
• Romanticization of Dislocation
  Some reviewers suggest that Friedman’s emphasis on dislocation as a site for creativity and identity formation risks romanticizing the trauma and alienation experienced by displaced individuals.
• Lack of Intersectional Analysis
  Critics point out that while Friedman engages with race, gender, and culture, her discussion could further incorporate an intersectional analysis of class, sexuality, and ability in shaping diasporic identities.
• Western-Centric Frameworks
  The theoretical grounding draws heavily from Western literary and cultural theorists (e.g., Homi Bhabha, Gloria Anzaldúa), which some argue may limit its applicability to non-Western diasporas or frameworks.
• Abstract and Dense Theoretical Language
  The text’s theoretical density and abstract language make it less accessible to general readers or those from disciplines outside literary theory.
• Minimal Focus on Historical Context
  While Friedman engages with cultural and emotional aspects of diaspora, some critics note a lack of deeper historical and political contextualization of the diasporic movements discussed.
• Limited Critique of the Concept of “Home”
  Critics suggest that the essay could delve more critically into the concept of “home” itself, questioning its construction and implications in different geopolitical contexts.

Representative Quotations from “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“One without a home becomes a traveler.”	Reflects the core idea of diasporic identity as dynamic and constantly evolving, where movement becomes a defining aspect of existence.
“Identity is changed by the journey.”	Emphasizes how diasporic journeys transform individual and collective identities, shaping new understandings of self and belonging.
“Diaspora is hard on intimacy.”	Highlights the strain and emotional complexities that displacement and cultural dislocation impose on personal relationships and family dynamics.
“Home is an idea, an inner geography where the ache to belong finally quits.”	Suggests that home transcends physicality and becomes a psychological construct, often influenced by nostalgia and longing.
“Living in a state of psychic unrest, in a Borderland is what makes poets write and artists create.”	Indicates how dislocation and the tension of living between cultures and worlds can fuel creativity and artistic expression.
“To inhabit the body of the stranger is to be never at home.”	Describes the alienation and exclusion faced by those who appear culturally or physically different in their host societies, making their sense of home precarious.
“Migration creates the desire for home, which in turn produces the rewriting of home.”	Explores how the experience of migration redefines the concept of home, often necessitating a reevaluation or creation of a new identity tied to both past and present experiences.
“The story about home is the story of trying to get there.”	Suggests that the notion of home is inherently tied to the journey or struggle of returning, physically or metaphorically, reflecting the diasporic condition.
“Home comes into being most powerfully when it is gone, lost, left behind, desired and imagined.”	Argues that the concept of home is often most deeply felt and articulated in its absence, resonating with diasporic communities who romanticize and idealize their lost origins.
“Writing about the loss of home brings one home again.”	Posits that creative and literary expression becomes a way to reconstruct and reclaim home in the face of dislocation, providing solace and continuity amid disruption.

Suggested Readings: “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora” by Susan Stanford Friedman

1. Friedman, Susan Stanford. “Bodies on the Move: A Poetics of Home and Diaspora.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, vol. 23, no. 2, 2004, pp. 189–212. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/20455187. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
2. Alam, Fakrul. “The Mythos of Return and Recent Indian English Diasporic Fiction.” Writing India Anew: Indian English Fiction 2000-2010, edited by Krishna Sen and Rituparna Roy, Amsterdam University Press, 2013, pp. 247–58. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt45kd51.18. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
3. Lehmann, Sophia. “In Search of a Mother Tongue: Locating Home in Diaspora.” MELUS, vol. 23, no. 4, 1998, pp. 101–18. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/467830. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.
4. Hussain, Asaf. “The Indian Diaspora in Britain: Political Interventionism and Diaspora Activism.” Asian Affairs, vol. 32, no. 3, 2005, pp. 189–208. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30172878. Accessed 22 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young

“Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young first appeared in 2019 in the anthology French Thought and Literary Theory in the UK, edited by Irving Goh and published by Taylor & Francis Group. This seminal essay examines the arrival and assimilation of French theory in British intellectual circles, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, contextualizing it within the broader history of Anglo-French intellectual exchanges. Young highlights the allure of French theoretical texts, which offered a tantalizing complexity, linguistic richness, and a promise of intellectual transformation. He situates this movement within a historical trajectory of philosophical engagement dating back to the French Revolution and beyond, noting its ties to left-wing radicalism and the critique of neoliberal ideologies. The essay underscores the literary dimensions of theory, arguing that its enigmatic and rigorous nature parallels the evocative depth of modernist literature. By connecting the theoretical to the literary, Young illuminates the transformative potential of theory not only as a mode of critique but as a form of literature in its own right. This work challenges conventional boundaries between disciplines and continues to shape debates in literary and cultural studies, offering insights into the enduring impact of French theory on global intellectual traditions.

Summary of “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young

• Introduction to French Theory in Britain: Initially a niche area in the 1960s and 1970s, French theory captivated British intellectuals with its linguistic intricacies, cultural alterity, and philosophical complexity. The allure stemmed from its resistance to easy comprehension and its promise of intellectual transformation (Young, 2019, pp. 2-3).
• Historical Roots of French Influence: French theoretical traditions have influenced British thought since the 18th century, including during the French Revolution and the spread of republican ideals. The philosophical exchange also drew on European revolutionary and post-revolutionary intellectual movements (Young, 2019, pp. 4-5).
• Resistance to Theory: Criticism of French theory emerged from empiricist British critics, Marxists wary of theorists like Louis Althusser, and academics concerned with its abstract nature. This reflects a broader skepticism toward “continental” intellectual traditions in Anglo-American contexts (Young, 2019, pp. 5-6).
• Literature’s Role in Theory: French theory extended the modernist fascination with linguistic and conceptual impenetrability. The integration of literary elements into theory underscored its ability to evoke emotional and intellectual responses, akin to literature itself (Young, 2019, pp. 6-7).
• Philosophical Exclusion and Impact: The analytic tradition’s dominance in Anglo-American philosophy excluded broader continental approaches, creating intellectual vacuums filled by literary critics engaging with French thinkers like Derrida and Foucault (Young, 2019, pp. 7-8).
• Interdisciplinary Encounters: The arrival of French theory catalyzed cross-disciplinary collaborations, particularly within philosophy, language studies, and literary criticism, exploring themes like translation, alterity, and ethical inquiries (Young, 2019, pp. 8-9).
• Global Influence and Decolonization: French theory’s global trajectory connected European traditions to postcolonial critiques. Writers like Fanon and Glissant reshaped theory by integrating anti-colonial perspectives, emphasizing self-critical traditions within European philosophy (Young, 2019, pp. 11-12).
• Theoretical Writing as Literature: Young argues that the literary qualities of theorists, including Derrida, Adorno, and Cixous, elevate their works beyond mere philosophy into the realm of creative and reflective literature (Young, 2019, pp. 12-13).
• Contemporary Relevance: Despite claims that theory is “over,” Young asserts its enduring importance. Theory persists as a self-reflective, critical tradition that engages with universal questions of existence, suffering, and knowledge (Young, 2019, pp. 13-14).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference/Context
Alterity	The state of being other or different; used in French theory to explore the unfamiliar and the foreign as intellectual stimuli.	Highlighted as central to the allure of French theory, offering new possibilities and challenges (Young, 2019, p. 2).
Continental Philosophy	A European tradition of philosophical thought, often emphasizing language, subjectivity, and existence.	Contrasted with Anglo-American analytic traditions, which sidelined it in the 20th century (Young, 2019, p. 7).
Delphic Obscurity	The characteristic complexity and opacity of French theory, making it resistant to straightforward interpretation.	Described as both a challenge and an attraction for readers (Young, 2019, p. 3).
Hermeneutics	The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of texts.	Referenced in connection to Coleridge and German traditions influencing British criticism (Young, 2019, p. 5).
Literariness	The quality that makes a text “literary,” including its aesthetic, formal, and conceptual attributes.	Explored in the context of how theory overlaps with and enhances literature (Young, 2019, p. 7).
Self-Critical Thinking	A defining trait of European philosophical traditions, involving critique of their own assumptions and frameworks.	Illustrated in the works of thinkers like Derrida and Fanon (Young, 2019, p. 12).
Translation	The act of rendering a text from one language to another; a key theme in theory for examining language, meaning, and cultural exchange.	French theory’s focus on translation emphasized its role in understanding alterity and ethics (Young, 2019, p. 8).
Ethics of Otherness	An ethical framework that prioritizes the recognition and respect for the “Other” in all its forms.	Central to postcolonial critiques and French theoretical engagement with identity (Young, 2019, p. 9).
Narratology	The study of narrative structure and the mechanisms of storytelling.	Linked to structuralist traditions and Russian formalists, surviving in modern theory (Young, 2019, p. 9).
Jacobin Radicalism	A political association with radical leftist ideologies originating from the French Revolution.	Discussed in the context of British fears of French theory’s revolutionary potential (Young, 2019, p. 4).
Opacity as Value	The idea that the complexity and difficulty of a theoretical text contribute to its depth and intellectual worth.	Discussed regarding Derrida and other theorists’ influence (Young, 2019, pp. 9-10).
Decolonization of Theory	The process of broadening theoretical frameworks to include perspectives from non-European and colonized cultures.	Explored through figures like Fanon and Césaire, who challenged Eurocentric frameworks (Young, 2019, p. 12).
Philosophy as Literature	The convergence of philosophy and literature, where philosophical texts achieve literary resonance.	Illustrated by writers like Derrida, Adorno, and Benjamin (Young, 2019, p. 13).
Untranslatability	The idea that certain terms or concepts cannot be fully conveyed across languages, reflecting unique cultural or philosophical contexts.	Explored through Cassin’s Dictionary of Untranslatables (Young, 2019, p. 13).

Contribution of “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young

Literary Work	Theoretical Approach	Critique	Key Philosophical and Literary Concepts
“1984” by George Orwell	Marxism and Ideology	Young suggests that Marxist theory, including Althusser’s concept of ideology, can be applied to 1984 to examine the role of state control over language and thought.	Ideology, State Control, Repressive Structures
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	Structuralism and Language	Young highlights how structuralist theory, particularly Roland Barthes’ poetics, can decode the dense allusions in The Waste Land to uncover the underlying cultural and social structures.	Language, Structuralism, Intertextuality
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Postcolonial Criticism and Alterity	Drawing on postcolonial theory, Young suggests that Beloved explores the trauma of slavery and the struggle for identity, using Fanon’s critique of colonialism and cultural erasure.	Trauma, Identity, Colonialism, Postcolonialism
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad	Postcolonial Criticism and European Self-Critique	Using Derrida’s concept of deconstruction and Fanon’s work, Young critiques Conrad’s portrayal of Africa and colonialism, emphasizing how the narrative reflects Europe’s internal contradictions.	Postcolonialism, Self-Critique, Eurocentrism, Deconstruction

Explanation:

• Marxism and Ideology in 1984 focuses on the way Orwell critiques capitalist societies by showing how totalitarian regimes manipulate ideology and control thought.
• Structuralism and Language applied to The Waste Land emphasizes how its intricate allusions and literary techniques reveal deeper cultural and social systems.
• Postcolonial Criticism and Alterity in Beloved examines the effects of slavery and colonialism, exploring how identity is shaped by historical trauma and oppression.
• Postcolonial Criticism and European Self-Critique in Heart of Darkness critiques Conrad’s representation of Africa through the lens of European philosophical self-reflection, showing how it embodies colonial biases and contradictions.

Criticism Against “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young

• Overemphasis on Complexity and Obscurity
  • Critics argue that the work places excessive value on the difficult and opaque nature of French theory, making it inaccessible to a wider audience. This can alienate readers who prefer clearer, more accessible theoretical approaches.
• Eurocentric Focus
  • Despite Young’s acknowledgment of non-European contributions, his discussion still heavily centers on European intellectual traditions, particularly French theory. This can reinforce a Eurocentric perspective, sidelining critical voices from outside the Western canon.
• Narrow Definition of Theory
  • The article presents “theory” in a limited sense, often excluding non-Western or non-continental philosophical traditions. Some critics feel that theory, as presented, does not adequately consider global or indigenous intellectual traditions, limiting its scope.
• Idealization of French Thought
  • Young’s admiration for French thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, and Barthes has been critiqued as somewhat idealized. Some argue that the elevation of French theory over other intellectual traditions perpetuates a hierarchy that undermines the value of other schools of thought.
• Dismissal of Practical Application
  • Critics suggest that Young’s discussion on the abstract nature of theory and philosophy ignores the practical implications of these ideas in real-world contexts, such as in policy, activism, or societal change.
• Overreliance on Obscure Language
  • The use of complex jargon and theoretical abstraction in the text has been criticized for contributing to the idea that philosophy and theory must be elusive or difficult. This style can discourage engagement from readers who are unfamiliar with academic jargon or prefer more straightforward discourse.
• Neglect of Political and Historical Context
  • While Young mentions some historical moments like the French Revolution, critics argue that his focus on theoretical developments sometimes overlooks the broader political and historical contexts in which these ideas were formulated, which can reduce the practical relevance of the theories.
• Conflation of Literary and Philosophical Writing
  • Some critics take issue with Young’s tendency to blur the lines between literary criticism and philosophy, suggesting that this conflation can muddy the waters between the two disciplines, making it unclear what the distinct contributions of each are.

Representative Quotations from “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Much of their passion for French theory was driven by a desire for intellectual intensity, for the experience of alterity, by a tantalising taste for the foreign.”	Young highlights the allure of French theory for British intellectuals in the 1960s and 1970s, noting that their interest was motivated by a desire for intellectual challenge and engagement with the “foreign” ideas and complexities within French philosophical traditions.
“To make the leap into theory was full of risk and danger. It was like being suddenly transported to a far-away unknown city…”	This metaphor illustrates the perceived complexity and unpredictability of engaging with theory. It suggests that diving into intellectual thought is an adventurous and risky endeavor, requiring trust and a willingness to face the unknown.
“Theory’s intriguing refusal to yield to simple comprehension, its resistance to interpretation, its promise of secrets to be obtained…”	Young emphasizes theory’s inherent complexity and its refusal to offer clear or easy answers. It appeals to those who are drawn to its mysteries and its potential to offer transformative, albeit elusive, insights.
“The texts of modernism had been unpicked, their treasures laid out on display in the glass cases of reader’s guides…”	Here, Young critiques the way modernist works were deconstructed and oversimplified in academic discourse. The original allure of modernist literature—the complexity of its references and the promise of deeper meaning—was diluted by over-analysis and the desire to explain every allusion.
“Theory held out its precarious promise that its complexity was an altogether different intricacy of conception…”	Young describes theory as offering a type of intellectual complexity distinct from literary impressionism. Unlike the evocative yet fleeting qualities of modernist literature, theory presents challenges that push the boundaries of intellectual and philosophical understanding.
“French theory in the UK has a long history, going back to the eighteenth century at least.”	This statement situates French intellectual traditions as deeply embedded in British intellectual history. Young suggests that French theory has long been influential in shaping critical thought in the UK, even prior to its resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s.
“The war between Britain and France was not simply a conventional war between rival states – it was also an ideological war…”	Young frames the conflict between Britain and France as not just a political or military rivalry, but also as a clash of ideologies, particularly the radical republicanism of the French against the conservative monarchy of Britain. This historical backdrop helps explain the tension around French theory.
“The arrival of French theory in Britain in the late 1960s and 1970s falls within a clear historical pattern…”	Young contextualizes the rise of French theory in Britain within a broader historical framework, linking it to the political upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly post-May 1968, and illustrating how intellectual movements often emerge in response to political change.
“The very word ‘theory,’ in the context of the humanities or social sciences, has continued to bear these ancient associations…”	Young acknowledges the longstanding association of “theory” with radical thought, particularly in the context of left-wing political movements. He notes that the term has historical roots tied to revolution and ideological challenges, which persist in its contemporary academic usage.
“Theory does not just comprise some form of ‘critical thinking’: it is fundamentally self-critical thinking…”	Young differentiates theory from mere critical thinking by asserting that theory involves constant self-reflection and self-critique. It challenges established norms and assumptions, fostering intellectual growth by questioning the very foundations of knowledge and understanding.

Suggested Readings: “Theory, Philosophy, Literature” by Robert C. Young

1. Palmer, Anthony. “Philosophy and Literature.” Philosophy, vol. 65, no. 252, 1990, pp. 155–66. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751385. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
2. Voice, Paul. “Why Literature Cannot Be Moral Philosophy.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 83/84, 1994, pp. 123–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802646. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
3. Thiher, Allen. “A Theory of Literature or Recent Literature as Theory.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 29, no. 3, 1988, pp. 337–50. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1208451. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
4. Wheater, Isabella. “Literature and Philosophy: Emotion and Knowledge?” Philosophy, vol. 79, no. 308, 2004, pp. 215–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751972. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

“How Literary Can Literariness Be?” by Massimo Salgaro first appeared in Scientific Study of Literature, volume 5, issue 2, in 2015, spanning pages 229–249 (doi: 10.1075/ssol.5.2.06sal). The article explores the methodological complexities inherent in studying “literariness,” particularly through the lens of foregrounding and its impact on readers’ cognitive and aesthetic engagement. Drawing on Roman Jakobson’s foundational concept of “literariness,” Salgaro interrogates how foregrounded linguistic elements, such as rhetorical figures, influence text processing under different genre expectations. The study employs experimental methods to examine how readers interpret texts presented as literary versus non-literary, revealing that genre perception significantly affects reading dynamics, such as attention to rhetorical features and lexical difficulty. Salgaro’s work underscores the interplay of textual features, cognitive schemas, and reader expectations, contributing to debates in literary theory about the nature of aesthetic experience. The study holds significant implications for understanding the cognitive and emotional mechanisms underpinning literary reading and broadens the methodological frameworks used in empirical aesthetics and literary criticism.

Summary of “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key References
Literariness	The quality that makes a text distinctly “literary,” often linked to stylistic and rhetorical features.	Jakobson (1987), Shklovsky (1917), Mukarovský (1932)
Foregrounding	The use of stylistic and linguistic features to defamiliarize, making readers notice elements of a text.	Miall & Kuiken (1994), Mukarovský (1932)
Defamiliarization	A process by which habitual perceptions are disrupted through novel or unexpected uses of language.	Shklovsky (1917), Mukarovský (1932)
Backgrounding	Elements in a text that connect to familiar schemata, allowing for narrative coherence and emotional resonance.	Jacobs (2013), Kneepkens & Zwaan (1994)
Reader Response Theory	A framework focusing on the reader’s role in interpreting texts based on personal and contextual factors.	Fish (1980), Jauss (1967), Iser (1976)
Schema Theory	The idea that literature disrupts and refreshes mental schemata, enabling new experiences for readers.	Jauss (1967), Iser (1976), Stockwell (2002)
Genre Expectations	Readers’ preconceptions about a text’s genre, influencing how they process and interpret it.	Zwaan (1991, 1994), Hoffstaedter (1986)
Lexical Challenge	Cognitive effort required to process statistically rare or complex lexical items in a text.	Levin (1963), Miall & Kuiken (1994)
Cognitive Control Mechanisms	Processes guiding how textual features are interpreted, influenced by genre and reader expertise.	Zwaan (1994), Jacobs (2013)
Statistical Deviation	A linguistic feature that deviates statistically from the norm within a language or genre.	Levin (1963), van Peer (1986)
Determinate Deviation	A clear violation of grammatical, poetic, or cultural conventions within a given context.	Levin (1963), Salgaro (2015)
Neurocognitive Poetics	A model of literary reading that emphasizes dual-route processing: fast, automatic immersion and slower, aesthetic processing.	Jacobs (2013), Lüdtke et al. (2014)
Pragmatic Concept of Literature	An approach that considers literature as defined by its function and reception, rather than intrinsic features.	Winko, Jannidis, & Lauer (2009)
Ecological Validity	The need for experimental studies to mimic naturalistic reading conditions to capture genuine literary experiences.	Dimigen et al. (2011), Salgaro (2015)

Contribution of “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro to Literary Theory/Theories

• Russian Formalism
  • Reinforces the concept of literariness as a distinctive characteristic of literary texts, primarily defined through foregrounding and defamiliarization.
  • Expands the Formalist idea that literary language disrupts conventional patterns to enable deeper engagement.
  • References: Shklovsky (1917), Jakobson (1987), Levin (1963).
• Reader Response Theory
  • Emphasizes the dynamic interaction between reader expectations and textual features in shaping the perception of literariness.
  • Demonstrates how genre expectations influence cognitive processing, supporting theories of reader-based interpretation.
  • References: Iser (1976), Jauss (1967), Zwaan (1991, 1994).
• Schema Theory
  • Applies schema theory to literary reading, showing how literary texts disrupt and refresh cognitive frameworks through processes of defamiliarization and refamiliarization.
  • Highlights the role of backgrounding in complementing foregrounding to create schema disruptions.
  • References: Stockwell (2002), Miall & Kuiken (1998).
• Empirical Aesthetics
  • Introduces experimental methodologies to test cognitive and emotional responses to foregrounded textual features like rhetorical figures.
  • Challenges earlier unitary conceptions of literariness, proposing that it emerges from a combination of textual and reader-based factors.
  • References: Altmann et al. (2012), Miall & Kuiken (1994), van Peer (1986).
• Neurocognitive Poetics
  • Aligns with neurocognitive models of reading, highlighting dual processing routes—fast immersive processes for backgrounding and slower, aesthetic engagement with foregrounding.
  • References: Jacobs (2011, 2013), Lüdtke et al. (2014).
• Pragmatic Literary Theory
  • Advocates for a pragmatic approach to literature that integrates both text-oriented and reader-oriented perspectives across diverse contexts.
  • Supports the idea that literariness is a multifaceted phenomenon rather than a fixed textual property.
  • References: Winko, Jannidis, & Lauer (2009).
• Cognitive Linguistics and Deviation Theory
  • Examines linguistic deviation at a micro-level (e.g., statistical rarity of words) to assess how foregrounding challenges lexical processing.
  • Contributes to understanding how deviations at lexical and semantic levels impact literary cognition.
  • References: Levin (1963), Sanford & Emmott (2012).
• Experimental Stylistics
  • Validates the role of rhetorical figures like oxymora and synaesthesia in slowing reading and increasing cognitive engagement.
  • Explores the influence of micro-level textual elements on comprehension and memory.
  • References: Miall & Kuiken (1994), van Peer & Hakemulder (2006).
• Aesthetic and Emotional Engagement
  • Discusses how foregrounding elicits aesthetic and emotional reactions, bridging defamiliarization (surprise) and refamiliarization (integration).
  • References: Kneepkens & Zwaan (1994), Miall & Kuiken (1999).

Examples of Critiques Through “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

Literary Work	Theory Applied	Critical Analysis
Ulysses by James Joyce	Foregrounding and Defamiliarization	Joyce’s use of complex narrative techniques and unconventional language creates foregrounding that disrupts conventional schemas, requiring readers to engage in defamiliarization and cognitive realignment (Miall & Kuiken, 1998).
The Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway	Backgrounding and Foregrounding Interaction	Hemingway’s minimalist style serves as backgrounding, while rare descriptive elements (e.g., “gaunt with deep wrinkles”) foreground key narrative moments, engaging both aesthetic and empathetic responses (Jacobs, 2013).
The Metamorphosis by Kafka	Schema Disruption and Refreshment	Kafka disrupts reader expectations through the absurd premise (Gregor’s transformation), leading to schema renewal and reflection on existential themes, consistent with schema theory (Stockwell, 2002).
A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams	Lexical and Rhetorical Foregrounding	The play’s use of figurative language, such as Blanche’s poetic monologues, slows comprehension, enhancing emotional and aesthetic engagement through rhetorical foregrounding (van Peer, 1986).
Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov	Genre Expectations and Reader Response	Nabokov manipulates genre expectations by blending fictional commentary and poetry, prompting readers to shift cognitive frames and question literariness itself (Zwaan, 1994).
Paradise Lost by John Milton	Cognitive and Emotional Dual Processing	Milton’s epic evokes immersive backgrounding through its narrative structure and aesthetic foregrounding via rich rhetorical devices (e.g., epic similes), engaging both fast and slow cognitive routes (Jacobs, 2011).
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman	Statistical Deviation and Lexical Rarity	Whitman’s repetition of uncommon word patterns and distinctive typography foreground his free verse style, exemplifying statistical deviation in poetic language (Levin, 1963).
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Foregrounding Emotional and Cognitive Challenges	Morrison’s complex narrative structure and dense metaphorical language foreground emotional and psychological themes, demanding slower, deeper engagement from readers (Miall & Kuiken, 1994).
1984 by George Orwell	Defamiliarization of Political Language	Orwell’s use of Newspeak and dystopian settings defamiliarizes readers with political language, enhancing critical reflection on societal norms through linguistic and narrative deviation (van Peer, Hakemulder & Zygnier, 2007).

Criticism Against “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

• Limited Scope of Foregrounding Analysis
  The study’s focus on isolated sentences in self-paced reading experiments neglects the holistic context of literary works, where foregrounding interacts with backgrounding to produce meaning. This narrow scope reduces ecological validity.
• Overemphasis on Statistical Deviation
  The reliance on statistical deviation as a measure of literariness may oversimplify the complexity of literary language and ignore the interplay of cultural, historical, and thematic contexts that influence literary appreciation.
• Neglect of Macro-Level Literary Structures
  The micro-level focus on lexical rarity and rhetorical figures does not address how larger narrative structures and themes contribute to the overall literariness of a text, limiting the applicability to comprehensive literary critique.
• Inconsistent Experimental Findings
  The conflicting results between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 highlight methodological issues in replicating the effects of foregrounding, raising questions about the reliability of the study’s conclusions.
• Reductionist Approach to Reader Response
  The cognitive model of reader response focuses on measurable linguistic and lexical elements but overlooks the subjective, emotional, and cultural factors that significantly impact literary reading experiences.
• Dependence on Laboratory Settings
  The artificiality of laboratory-based, word-by-word reading procedures does not reflect natural reading habits, potentially distorting how literariness and foregrounding operate in real-world contexts.
• Limited Exploration of Genre Diversity
  The experiments predominantly focus on literary versus non-literary texts without addressing how different literary genres (e.g., poetry, drama, prose) may uniquely employ foregrounding and backgrounding.
• Insufficient Integration of Historical Literary Theory
  While the study references key theorists (e.g., Jakobson, Shklovsky), it does not thoroughly integrate historical insights into its empirical framework, potentially leading to a fragmented understanding of literariness.
• Minimal Engagement with Reader Expertise
  The study does not sufficiently account for how a reader’s literary expertise, cultural background, or reading habits influence their perception of foregrounding and genre expectations.

Representative Quotations from “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness cannot be considered a textual feature only, but is rather the effect of a multifaceted process integrating textual features and cognitive operations.” (p. 245)	Highlights the complexity of literariness as a dynamic interplay between text characteristics and reader cognition, challenging the notion of a fixed definition for literariness.
“Foregrounding induces not only deeper language processing but also extended emotional and psychological change.” (p. 234)	Suggests that foregrounded elements in texts can enhance cognitive engagement and provoke profound emotional reactions, supporting their role in distinguishing literary texts from non-literary ones.
“The defamiliarization effect of foregrounding elements does not work in isolation; it requires the presence of backgrounding elements.” (p. 243)	Emphasizes that both foregrounding and backgrounding are essential for creating literary effects, as foregrounding gains significance only when contrasted against a norm or contextual background.
“Genre expectations influence how texts are processed, demonstrating that literariness also involves top-down cognitive processes.” (p. 237)	Indicates that readers’ preconceived notions about a text’s genre affect their reading strategies, further blurring the line between intrinsic textual features and reader perceptions in defining literariness.
“The attempt to study foregrounding statistically is a methodological challenge, as deviation depends on the specific context in which it is observed.” (p. 243)	Acknowledges the difficulty in quantifying foregrounding, as its effect is context-dependent, necessitating nuanced experimental approaches to study its role in literariness.
“Slowed reading times for foregrounded elements indicate cognitive challenge and heightened attention, characteristics of literary processing.” (p. 239)	Suggests that the slowed processing of foregrounded linguistic features signals the reader’s deeper engagement with literary texts, distinguishing them from mundane reading experiences.
“Statistical rarity of words contributes to the literary effect, but it must be analyzed within micro- and macro-contexts.” (p. 240)	Proposes that linguistic deviation contributes to literariness but insists on examining how these rare elements interact with broader textual and thematic structures.
“Literary language provides occasion for dehabituation, for contemplating alternative modes of experience.” (p. 230)	Echoes the Russian Formalist idea that literary texts disrupt habitual ways of thinking, offering readers opportunities for fresh perspectives and experiences.
“Refamiliarization is an integral part of literariness, as it integrates the defamiliarized text into the reader’s existing cognitive frameworks.” (p. 238)	Highlights the cyclical nature of literary reading, where readers process and reconcile unfamiliar elements within their pre-existing knowledge and expectations.
“Empirical studies show that foregrounded elements elicit surprise and require longer reading times, affirming their role in cognitive and aesthetic literary experiences.” (p. 233)	Validates the significance of foregrounding in eliciting cognitive and emotional engagement, substantiating its importance in empirical investigations of literariness.

Suggested Readings: “How Literary Can Literariness Be?” By Massimo Salgaro

1. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
2. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
3. Merrett, Robert James. “Literariness: Aesthetic and Cultural Dialectic.” Imperial Paradoxes: Training the Senses and Tasting the Eighteenth Century, vol. 83, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021, pp. 79–113. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1xp9pnm.6. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
4. Salgaro, Massimo. “How literary can literariness be? Methodological problems in the study of foregrounding.” Scientific Study of Literature 5.2 (2015): 229-249.

Introduction: “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

“Diasporas Old and New: Women in the Transnational World” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak first appeared in the journal Textual Practice in 1996 and represents a seminal intervention in feminist literary theory and postcolonial studies. In this essay, originally delivered as a lecture at Rutgers University in 1994, Spivak explores the dynamics of women’s experiences within diasporic and transnational contexts. She critically examines the intersections of labor migrancy, population control, and indigenous women’s positions outside traditional diasporic frameworks. Spivak critiques the neoliberal restructuring of the global economy and its impact on decolonization, emphasizing how transnational capitalism exploits women disproportionately while eroding civil society in both developed and developing nations. She also interrogates the Eurocentric biases embedded in feminist and cultural studies, particularly the reductive treatment of diasporic women’s narratives. This work is pivotal for its nuanced critique of global feminism, its advocacy for a decolonized perspective on transnationality, and its challenge to homogenizing cultural and feminist frameworks, making it a cornerstone in debates about globalization, identity, and gendered labor.

Summary of “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

• Transnationality and Economic Realities:
  • Spivak critiques the shift from multinational to transnational frameworks of labor migration as a symptom of neoliberal globalization (Spivak, 1996, p. 245).
  • This shift exacerbates inequalities in developing nations, damaging the potential for civil society and social redistribution (p. 248).
• Old vs. New Diasporas:
  • Old Diasporas: Rooted in religious oppression, war, slavery, indenture, and conquest, primarily within intra-European contexts or U.S. immigration (p. 245).
  • New Diasporas: Emerging from economic migration, political asylum-seeking, and gendered labor export, predominantly impacting women (p. 246).
• Women and Labor:
  • Women’s labor, such as homeworking, often lacks institutional protection, reinforcing unpaid domestic labor’s undervaluation (p. 246).
  • Transnational agencies impose population control policies targeting impoverished women, equating reproductive capacity with identity, which Spivak terms “gynocide” (p. 247).
• Excluded Groups:
  • Indigenous women and groups unable to migrate are excluded from both old and new diasporic narratives, reflecting a broader marginalization within transnational discourses (p. 247).
• Civil Society and Feminist Interventions:
  • Transnational processes undermine the formation of civil societies in developing nations, which Spivak links to a failure of decolonization (p. 248).
  • Feminist critiques often neglect the complexities of transnationality, focusing instead on identity politics or Eurocentric frameworks (p. 250).
• Culturalism and Multiculturalism:
  • Spivak critiques the romanticization of cultural relativism and its limitations in addressing systemic transnational inequalities (p. 254).
  • She emphasizes the need for nuanced feminist approaches that resist reductive cultural explanations (p. 256).
• Challenges for Feminist Academics:
  • Academics must navigate the ideological constraints of neoliberal frameworks while promoting transnational feminist literacy (p. 257).
  • Spivak warns against the uncritical adoption of Western feminist paradigms, advocating for localized and intersectional analyses (p. 258).
• The Role of Women in Transnational Narratives:
  • Women are often positioned as victims or passive agents, ignoring their potential as active participants in resisting globalization’s exploitative structures (p. 259).
  • Feminist translators and academics have a critical role in amplifying subaltern voices while resisting dominant culturalist narratives (p. 262).
• Implications for the Future:
  • Spivak calls for a rethinking of diasporic and global feminist frameworks to address economic inequalities, cultural marginalization, and the intersectionality of women’s experiences (p. 264).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Term/Concept	Explanation	Context/Significance
Transnationality	Refers to the globalized movement of labor and capital, eroding the autonomy of developing nations.	Highlights the exploitation of labor, especially women’s, under neoliberal globalization (Spivak, 1996, p. 245).
Diaspora (Old and New)	Old diasporas stemmed from war, slavery, and religious oppression; new ones are driven by economic migration and asylum-seeking.	Explains shifts in global labor migration and their gendered impact on women in First and Third World contexts (p. 246).
Civil Society	The arena in which individuals can demand service or redress from the state, ideally a space of equity.	Civil society’s weakening under transnationality limits avenues for social redistribution and justice (p. 248).
Population Control	Policies targeting women in developing nations to limit reproduction, often imposed by global agencies.	Criticized as “gynocide” that dehumanizes women and reduces them to reproductive agents (p. 247).
Homeworking	Women performing piecework labor at home without legal or wage protections.	Exemplifies how transnational capitalism exploits women while marginalizing their labor contributions (p. 246).
Subaltern	Borrowed from Gramsci, it refers to marginalized groups excluded from elite discourse.	Indigenous women and non-migrant groups exemplify subalternity in transnational frameworks (p. 247).
Multiculturalism	A superficial celebration of cultural diversity, often excluding the structural inequalities of labor and migration.	Criticized as insufficient for addressing systemic oppression in diasporic and transnational contexts (p. 254).
Global Feminism	Feminist frameworks attempting to address global issues.	Spivak critiques their tendency to universalize Western feminist ideologies, ignoring localized struggles (p. 256).
Gynocide	A term used to describe systemic violence against women, particularly through reproductive policies.	Shows how global institutions perpetuate violence under the guise of development (p. 247).
Economic Citizenship	Rights and access defined through economic participation, privileging elites.	Transnational capital fosters this form of citizenship, sidelining marginalized groups (p. 249).
Post-State Class System	Emerging global class systems detached from traditional nation-state frameworks.	Highlights the role of women in sustaining global capitalism through undervalued and exploited labor (p. 249).
Culturalism	Using cultural explanations to mask structural inequalities.	Critiqued as an inadequate lens for analyzing transnational gendered labor (p. 254).
Responsibility-Based Ethics	Ethical systems emphasizing accountability to all, especially marginalized groups.	Advocated as a feminist framework for navigating global inequalities (p. 259).
Decolonization of the Mind	The process of resisting cultural and ideological dominance from global and colonial powers.	Proposed as necessary for addressing the failures of civil society in decolonized nations (p. 258).
Hybridity and Migration	The blending of identities through migration and diaspora.	Spivak critiques the romanticization of hybridity in cultural studies for masking systemic exploitation (p. 262).
Economic Development	Often framed as progress, it is critiqued as a tool for furthering transnational exploitation.	Spivak critiques “Women in Development” policies for exacerbating global inequalities (p. 264).

Contribution of “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak to Literary Theory/Theories

---

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Contribution: Spivak critiques the legacy of colonialism in shaping global inequalities, particularly through the lens of diasporic labor, migration, and gendered exploitation. She expands postcolonial theory by addressing the intersections of economic globalization and gender.
• Key Ideas:
  • The “failure of decolonization” to establish civil societies capable of ensuring social redistribution (Spivak, p. 248).
  • Transnationality as a continuation of imperialist exploitation under the guise of globalization (p. 249).
  • The subaltern’s inability to engage fully in civil society or articulate their resistance (p. 259).
• Significance: Spivak’s analysis adds depth to postcolonial studies by linking economic systems, global feminism, and cultural narratives, showing how postcolonial identities are commodified in transnational spaces.

---

2. Feminist Literary Theory

• Contribution: Spivak critiques Eurocentric feminist universalism and advocates for a transnational feminist perspective sensitive to local and global contexts.
• Key Ideas:
  • The imposition of population control policies on women in developing nations as a form of “gynocide” (p. 247).
  • The romanticization of cultural relativism by feminist cultural studies (p. 253).
  • The dangers of transnational feminism reducing women’s experiences to reproductive and domestic labor (p. 254).
• Significance: By exposing the limitations of global feminism, Spivak urges feminists to engage with localized struggles and the complexities of women’s roles in diasporic and transnational contexts.

---

3. Subaltern Studies

• Contribution: Spivak builds on her seminal idea of the subaltern’s inability to speak by exploring how globalization has altered subaltern identities.
• Key Ideas:
  • Many indigenous and marginalized women cannot become “diasporic” and remain trapped in global systems of labor exploitation (p. 247).
  • Spivak critiques the cultural and economic narratives that exclude subaltern groups from meaningful participation in civil society (p. 249).
• Significance: Spivak’s emphasis on the “new subaltern” in transnational spaces extends Subaltern Studies to address contemporary forms of global economic and cultural domination.

---

4. Marxist Theory

• Contribution: Spivak incorporates Marxist critiques of capitalism into her analysis of transnationality, focusing on how labor and capital exploitation disproportionately affect women in diasporic contexts.
• Key Ideas:
  • The commodification of women’s labor in the global economy (homeworking and export-processing zones) reflects new forms of capitalist exploitation (p. 246).
  • The distinction between labor and labor-power in reproductive contexts (p. 264).
  • The undermining of civil society in developing nations to prioritize global financialization (p. 249).
• Significance: Spivak enriches Marxist theory by linking economic exploitation to gendered labor practices and transnational power dynamics.

---

5. Cultural Studies

• Contribution: Spivak critiques Cultural Studies for romanticizing hybridity and diaspora while ignoring systemic economic exploitation and labor conditions.
• Key Ideas:
  • The fetishization of cultural hybridity and multiculturalism as solutions to systemic inequalities (p. 262).
  • The “re-coding” of global capitalism as cultural phenomena, masking its exploitative nature (p. 245).
• Significance: Spivak challenges Cultural Studies to address material conditions of labor and power, rather than focusing solely on cultural representations.

---

6. Critical Theory and Ethics

• Contribution: Spivak interrogates notions of responsibility and ethical engagement in transnational and feminist contexts.
• Key Ideas:
  • Feminist universalism propagated by transnational agencies often fails to account for the ethical complexities of cultural and economic conditions (p. 256).
  • Responsibility-based ethics should account for both the material and symbolic dimensions of women’s experiences in globalization (p. 259).
• Significance: Spivak’s ethical framework offers a nuanced approach to analyzing global feminist practices and transnational activism.

---

7. Deconstruction

• Contribution: Spivak applies deconstructive methods to challenge fixed binaries like local/global, private/public, and labor/capital, emphasizing their instability in transnational contexts.
• Key Ideas:
  • The inherent contradictions in feminist universalism and cultural relativism (p. 256).
  • The destabilization of national and state boundaries in the era of globalization (p. 262).
• Significance: Spivak’s application of deconstruction highlights the aporias and tensions within feminist and postcolonial theories, urging a rethinking of theoretical categories.

---

8. Development Studies

• Contribution: Spivak critiques the ideology of “development” as a tool for perpetuating global inequalities, especially through its impact on women.
• Key Ideas:
  • “Women in Development” policies often exploit women’s labor under the guise of empowerment (p. 264).
  • Development projects prioritize capital maximization over social redistribution (p. 249).
• Significance: Spivak’s analysis provides a feminist critique of development paradigms, linking them to transnational systems of economic exploitation.

Examples of Critiques Through “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Literary Work	Critique through Spivak’s Lens	Key Concepts from Spivak’s Article	Relevant Citation from Spivak
Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys	– Highlights the exploitation and silencing of subaltern women in colonial and postcolonial contexts. – Antoinette’s marginalization mirrors the diasporic woman’s struggle for agency within transnational systems.	Subalternity, cultural hybridity, gendered exploitation.	“The disenfranchised new or old diasporic woman cannot engage in the critical agency of civil society” (p. 259).
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	– Examines the impact of colonialism on indigenous structures of gender and power. – Women’s erasure parallels Spivak’s critique of transnationality silencing subaltern voices.	Subaltern women’s exclusion from diasporic narratives, intersection of colonial and gender oppression.	“Large groups within this space of difference subsist in transnationality without escaping into diaspora” (p. 247).
The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy	– Analyzes caste and gender oppression alongside diasporic identity and labor. – Ammu’s struggles reflect the “in-place uprooting” of women in transnational spaces.	Intersection of caste, gender, and globalization in labor and identity.	“The haunting in-place uprooting of ‘comfort women’ in Asia and Africa” (p. 245).
Brick Lane by Monica Ali	– Critiques the romanticized hybridity of diasporic life in the West. – Focuses on the material struggles of migrant women excluded from civil society.	Romanticization of cultural hybridity, transnational exploitation of women’s labor, gendered subalternity.	“Feminists with a transnational consciousness will also be aware that the very civil structure… can provide alibis for global financialization” (p. 249).

---

Criticism Against “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

• Dense and Esoteric Language:
  • Spivak’s theoretical style often employs highly complex, jargon-heavy language that can alienate readers unfamiliar with poststructuralist discourse.
  • Critics argue that the accessibility of her arguments is compromised, limiting engagement beyond academia.
• Overemphasis on Theory Over Praxis:
  • Spivak’s work is critiqued for prioritizing theoretical frameworks over actionable insights or practical solutions for the issues of diasporic women.
  • The critique highlights a gap between her philosophical speculations and real-world applications for marginalized women.
• Generalization of Diasporic Experiences:
  • Critics suggest that Spivak’s framing of diasporas and transnationality does not adequately account for the nuanced differences in diasporic identities, especially across varied cultural and historical contexts.
• Ambiguity in Subaltern Representation:
  • Some scholars argue that Spivak’s portrayal of subaltern women is paradoxical, as she critiques their silencing while simultaneously speaking on their behalf, raising concerns of academic elitism.
• Limited Focus on Specific Geographies:
  • Spivak’s emphasis on the transnational often sidelines detailed discussions of specific regional or cultural contexts, such as the unique experiences of African, Caribbean, or Latin American diasporas.
• Critique of Feminist Universalism:
  • While Spivak critiques feminist universalism propagated through transnational agencies like the UN, some critics feel her stance underestimates the potential of global feminist solidarity.
• Neglect of Male Perspectives in Diasporic Studies:
  • Spivak’s work focuses heavily on women, often ignoring the intersecting roles of men in shaping diasporic and transnational experiences, which some view as an incomplete analysis.
• Contradiction in Anti-Eurocentrism:
  • Although Spivak critiques Eurocentric feminism, her reliance on European philosophers (e.g., Derrida, Marx) is seen as contradictory by some critics, questioning her theoretical consistency.
• Abstract Approach to Civil Society:
  • Critics argue that Spivak’s discussion on the erosion of civil society under transnationality lacks empirical grounding, making it difficult to apply to specific policy or grassroots activism.

Representative Quotations from “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Transnationality is becoming the name of the increased migrancy of labour.”	Spivak critiques the commodification of labor under global capitalism, where transnationality shifts from being a cultural phenomenon to a symptom of economic exploitation. This reframes migration not as voluntary movement but as a structural necessity driven by neoliberal agendas.
“The concept of a diasporic multiculturalism is irrelevant here.”	Addressing women engaged in homeworking, Spivak dismisses the romanticized notions of multiculturalism in diasporas, highlighting the harsh realities of unregulated labor markets that disproportionately exploit women.
“Population Control… is no less than gynocide and war on women.”	Spivak critiques global population control policies imposed on women in developing countries, arguing they perpetuate Western ideologies that reduce women to their reproductive capacities and enforce systemic violence masked as aid.
“Groups that cannot become diasporic… include most indigenous groups outside Euramerica.”	Spivak emphasizes that not all groups can access the diasporic experience. For indigenous populations, transnationality manifests as a form of systemic marginalization rather than mobility or hybridity, challenging common assumptions about the benefits of globalization.
“Women, with other disenfranchised groups, have never been full subjects of and agents in civil society.”	Spivak critiques the historical exclusion of women and marginalized groups from the frameworks of civil society, arguing that even within global feminist movements, women’s citizenship and agency remain precarious and conditional.
“Transnationality is shrinking the possibility of an operative civil society in developing nations.”	She identifies a destructive feedback loop where global financialization undermines local civil societies in the Global South, dismantling systems that could facilitate gender justice or equitable redistribution of resources.
“The new diaspora is determined by the increasing failure of a civil society in developing nations.”	Spivak connects the rise of new diasporas to systemic failures in nation-building and decolonization in developing nations, critiquing the role of global capital in exacerbating inequalities.
“The feminist universalism propagated through the United Nations… effaces the role of the state.”	She critiques the UN’s version of feminism as perpetuating neoliberal agendas that bypass state structures, rendering them irrelevant and redirecting power to international institutions and NGOs, which may not always serve grassroots needs.
“Women in transnationality are the super-dominated, the super-exploited, but not in the same way.”	Spivak highlights how women, while universally oppressed, face varying modes of domination depending on geographic, economic, and sociopolitical contexts, thereby challenging homogenous narratives of feminist struggle.
“The painstaking cultivation of such a contradictory, indeed aporetic, practical acknowledgment is the basis of a decolonization of the mind.”	Spivak argues for a nuanced and reflective approach to understanding transnational feminism, one that confronts contradictions without seeking easy solutions, thereby fostering intellectual resistance against hegemonic global structures.

Suggested Readings: “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

1. Danius, Sara, et al. “An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.” Boundary 2, vol. 20, no. 2, 1993, pp. 24–50. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/303357. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
2. Sipiora, Phillip, et al. “Rhetoric and Cultural Explanation: A Discussion with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.” Journal of Advanced Composition, vol. 10, no. 2, 1990, pp. 293–304. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20865732. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
3. Clifford, James. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 3, 1994, pp. 302–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/656365. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
4. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Diasporas old and new: Women in the transnational world.” Textual practice 10.2 (1996): 245-269.

Introduction: “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky

“Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky first appeared in the Summer 1998 issue of Theory into Practice, published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd. The article, found in Volume 37, No. 3, explores the symbiotic relationship between literary theory and teaching practices in the high school English classroom. Willinsky argues that the separation of theory from practice is an artificial divide, asserting that theory is inherently present in all educational activities. He emphasizes that teaching literature involves navigating and interrogating the underlying theoretical frameworks that shape our understanding of texts, the act of reading, and the broader educational process. The article underscores the importance of fostering a classroom environment where both teachers and students critically examine and articulate the theories informing their practices. Willinsky’s insights highlight how literary theory enriches the educational experience, providing tools for deeper engagement with literature and encouraging reflective thinking about the world. This work serves as a call to integrate theoretical inquiry seamlessly into the teaching of literature, enhancing both intellectual and pedagogical depth.

Summary of “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky

Theoretical Term/Concept	Description	Context in the Article
Theory-Practice Interconnection	The idea that theory and practice are not separate entities but are inherently linked.	Willinsky argues that theory shapes practice, and all actions, including teaching, are rooted in theoretical frameworks (p. 244-246).
Sense-Making	The process of using theory to understand and organize experiences and the world.	Theory is portrayed as a tool for understanding and engaging with literature and the broader world (p. 246).
Theoretical Distinction	The categorization of actions or concepts as “theory” or “practice,” itself a theoretical exercise.	Willinsky critiques this distinction as artificial and unnecessary in the educational context (p. 244-245).
Implicit Theory	Unstated or ad hoc theoretical frameworks guiding actions and practices.	Many teaching practices operate under implicit theories that remain unexplored and unnamed (p. 245).
Theory as Metaphor	Viewing theory as a way to describe or frame something, such as reading or teaching.	Teachers use metaphors like “interpreting a sign” or “decoding a message” to describe reading (p. 248).
Theory as Pointer	Using theory to focus attention on specific aspects of a text or concept.	Teachers employ theory to guide students’ focus on elements like genre structure or character development (p. 248).
Denial of Theory	Resistance to theoretical approaches, favoring “natural” or “pure” engagement with texts.	Critiques movements like ALSC for rejecting theory in favor of a “natural” approach to literature (p. 247).
Theory as Method	Theory as a structured way of approaching and analyzing literature and education.	Demonstrates how theory can guide teaching practices, such as fostering critical thinking in students (p. 249).
Educational Value of Theory	The potential of theory to deepen understanding and enhance educational experiences.	Willinsky advocates for theory as a tool for critical engagement and intellectual growth in classrooms (p. 248-250).
Practice into Theory	The process of explicitly examining and understanding the theoretical basis of practices.	Encourages integrating practice into discussions of theory to enrich educational outcomes (p. 250).

Contribution of “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky

Literary Work	Critique Through Willinsky’s Framework	Theoretical Approach	Reference in Article
Shakespeare’s Macbeth	Explored as a political and educational metaphor, critiquing governance and power dynamics in the classroom as reflective of the play’s themes.	Theory of Practice and Political Reading	Willinsky discusses how teachers use Macbeth to reflect on classroom dynamics (p. 249).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart	Critiqued through a post-colonial lens, analyzing how imperialism shapes cultural identities and how literature responds to colonial narratives.	Post-Colonial Theory	Singh and Greenlaw’s contributions emphasize reshaping the teaching of post-colonial literature (p. 249).
William Blake’s Poetry	Analyzed for its capacity to critique the boundaries of language and meaning, using deconstruction to expand its interpretive possibilities.	Deconstruction	Leggo uses Blake’s work to explore how poetry and language slip beyond fixed meanings (p. 248).
Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken	Critiqued as a reflection of individual choice and societal frameworks, exploring its embedded theories of decision-making and autonomy.	Reader Response Theory	Example of students analyzing the theoretical implications of Frost’s metaphor of choice and identity (p. 249).

Criticism Against “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky

Representative Quotations from “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Theory takes practice. Theory shapes practice.” (p. 244)	Willinsky underscores the interdependence of theory and practice, emphasizing that theoretical concepts are always enacted in practical contexts.
“Our practices exist by virtue of our theories.” (p. 244)	This highlights the foundational role of theory in guiding and informing human actions, whether explicitly acknowledged or not.
“Theory and practice are inextricably intertwined, and nowhere more so than in the classroom.” (p. 246)	The classroom is presented as a space where theoretical ideas are constantly applied, making the distinction between theory and practice irrelevant.
“To speak of theory… is to look at how one is making sense of the world.” (p. 245)	Willinsky argues that theory provides the framework for interpreting and organizing experiences, particularly in educational settings.
“Practice does not make perfect, theory does.” (p. 247)	This provocative statement asserts that only through theory can practices achieve refinement and deeper understanding.
“Reading literature is seen as part of the immediate world, as an experience, as opposed to a theory of the world.” (p. 248)	Willinsky critiques the notion of reading as purely experiential, arguing that all readings are informed by theoretical frameworks.
“Theory is a way of naming where one wants to arrive.” (p. 249)	This metaphor positions theory as a guiding principle or goal that helps educators and students focus their efforts and inquiries.
“We do not need to move theory into practice. It is already there.” (p. 246)	Willinsky rejects the common call to make theory practical, asserting instead that theory is inherently part of all educational practices.
“The language we use is both a theory of the world—a way of naming its parts and purposes—and a form of practice on the world.” (p. 246)	This highlights how language acts as both a theoretical tool and a practical means of shaping reality and understanding.
“We can dare to teach literature as a theory of what literature and reading are all about, a theory that deserves to be considered and challenged.” (p. 245)	Willinsky encourages educators to embrace literary theory as a means to engage with fundamental questions about literature and its significance.

Suggested Readings: “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory” by John Willinsky

1. Willinsky, John. “Teaching Literature Is Teaching in Theory.” Theory Into Practice, vol. 37, no. 3, 1998, pp. 244–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477527. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
2. Wilson, Beth. “Teach the How: Critical Lenses and Critical Literacy.” The English Journal, vol. 103, no. 4, 2014, pp. 68–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484223. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
3. MACLEAN, IAN, and DAVID ROBEY. “LITERARY THEORY AND THE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION.” Paragraph, vol. 1, 1983, pp. 13–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263169. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
4. Goodman, Lorien J. “Teaching Theory after Theory.” Pacific Coast Philology, vol. 42, no. 1, 2007, pp. 110–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25474220. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

“Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” by Raman Selden first appeared in the journal Critical Survey, Vol. 3, No. 1, in 1991, published by Berghahn Books. This seminal essay examines the role and necessity of literary theory in literary studies, challenging traditional notions of textual analysis. Selden critiques the “common-sense” approach to literature, which treats texts as fixed entities with singular meanings dictated by authorial intent, and introduces alternative perspectives inspired by theorists like Brecht, Derrida, and Bakhtin. These perspectives emphasize the fluidity of meaning, the sociopolitical implications of language, and the interplay of power in literary discourse. By using examples from Shakespeare’s The Tempest and feminist readings of texts, Selden illustrates how literary theory destabilizes entrenched ideologies, offering tools to interrogate assumptions about race, gender, and colonialism. The essay underscores theory’s vital role in enriching literary studies by challenging dogma and fostering critical inquiry, thus positioning it as an essential component for dynamic and transformative scholarship.

Summary of “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

1. Challenging “Common Sense” in Literary Studies
   • Literary theory serves as a counterforce to the “common-sense” view, which perceives literary texts as fixed entities with singular, unified meanings (Selden, 1991, p. 96).
   • Common sense often simplifies texts into straightforward narratives, suppressing the multiplicity of meanings present in literature.
2. Historical Perspectives: Moral vs. Aesthetic Views
   • John Morley emphasized the moral role of literature in cultivating imagination and moral sensibility (p. 97).
   • In contrast, the aesthetic movement, represented by figures like Oscar Wilde, saw art as a rebellion against moral conventions, aligning with structuralist ideas that “language shapes the world” (p. 97).
3. Core Assumptions of Traditional Literary Studies
   • Selden critiques assumptions that:
     • Texts contain fixed meanings.
     • Authors’ intentions are central to interpretation.
     • Readers passively reflect textual meaning (pp. 98–99).
4. Reevaluating Shakespeare’s The Tempest
   • Common-sense readings portray Prospero as a benevolent authority figure.
   • A Brechtian or Bakhtinian reading highlights Prospero’s role as a colonizer and emphasizes Caliban’s voice as suppressed by Prospero’s language (pp. 99–100).
5. Language as Ideological and Multi-Accented
   • Drawing on Mikhail Bakhtin, Selden argues that language is shaped by social struggles and cannot be neutral. Prospero’s discourse, for example, is imbued with colonialist and ideological undertones (p. 100).
6. Deconstruction and Derrida’s Logocentrism
   • Derrida challenges the search for an “essence” or “truth” in texts, revealing how language inherently resists stable meanings (p. 101).
   • Selden applies this perspective to show how texts like The Tempest harbor internal contradictions and resist univocal interpretations.
7. Feminist Criticism and Gender Representation
   • Feminist critics disrupt patriarchal interpretations, emphasizing how texts often objectify women and position readers in a male-dominated framework.
   • For instance, in Lucky Jim, women are reduced to stereotypes and subjected to a male gaze (pp. 102–103).
8. Theory as Liberation in Literary Studies
   • Selden asserts that theory liberates literary studies by questioning dogmatic beliefs and expanding interpretive frameworks.
   • It prevents literature from becoming stagnant and ensures dynamic engagement with texts (p. 103).
9. Conclusion: The Necessity of Theory
   • Selden likens theory to fresh air or manure, essential for revitalizing literary studies. It challenges closed-mindedness and promotes intellectual growth (p. 103).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context in the Article
Common Sense	A traditional approach in literary studies that assumes texts have fixed, univocal meanings.	Critiqued as limiting because it suppresses the multiplicity of interpretations (Selden, 1991, p. 96).
Moral Criticism	The view that literature’s primary function is to cultivate moral sensibilities and provide ethical guidance.	Represented by John Morley’s emphasis on literature as a source of stability and tradition (p. 97).
Aestheticism	An approach that values art for its own sake, independent of moral or utilitarian concerns.	Exemplified by Oscar Wilde, who argued that “nature imitates art” (p. 97).
Colonialist Discourse	A framework that justifies colonial domination through cultural, religious, or ethical superiority.	Applied to Prospero’s treatment of Caliban in The Tempest, marking it as a reflection of colonialism (p. 100).
Logocentrism	Derrida’s concept of a search for a central truth or essence in texts.	Critiqued as reductive because it ignores language’s inherent instability and contradictions (p. 101).
Deconstruction	A method of critical analysis that reveals internal inconsistencies within a text.	Used to demonstrate how texts resist singular meanings and contain contradictions (p. 101).
Multi-Accented Language	Bakhtin’s idea that language is shaped by ideological struggles and is inherently contested.	Highlighted in the interplay between Prospero’s and Caliban’s discourses in The Tempest (p. 100).
Alienation Effect	Brecht’s technique to prevent passive empathy by making familiar actions appear strange and questionable.	Advocated to critique traditional, uncritical engagement with literature, as seen in The Tempest (p. 99).
Feminist Criticism	An approach that examines gendered power structures and the objectification of women in texts.	Discussed in the context of gender stereotypes in Lucky Jim and other texts (pp. 102–103).
Reader-Response Criticism	The theory that readers actively participate in shaping a text’s meaning.	Contrasts with the view of the reader as a passive recipient of the author’s intended meaning (p. 98).
Romantic Readings	Interpretations that seek transcendental truths or essences in literary texts.	Illustrated through interpretations of The Tempest as a story of divine order and providence (p. 101).

Contribution of “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory
   • Analysis of Colonialist Discourse: Selden examines The Tempest through a postcolonial lens, revealing how Prospero’s authority and treatment of Caliban reflect colonial power dynamics (Selden, 1991, p. 100).
   • Contribution: This analysis aligns with postcolonial theory by demonstrating how texts encode and perpetuate colonial ideologies.
2. Deconstruction (Derridean Thought)
   • Critique of Logocentrism: Selden adopts Derrida’s critique of the search for an “essence” or “truth” in texts, illustrating how literature inherently resists singular interpretations (p. 101).
   • Contribution: He validates deconstruction as a method to uncover contradictions and challenge fixed meanings in literary texts.
3. Bakhtinian Dialogism
   • Language as Ideologically Contested: Using Bakhtin’s theory, Selden argues that language is multi-accentual and shaped by social and ideological struggles, opposing its view as a neutral medium (p. 100).
   • Contribution: This enriches Bakhtinian thought by applying it to analyze power relations in literary language, as seen in The Tempest.
4. Brechtian Literary Criticism
   • Alienation Effect in Reading: Selden advocates Brecht’s alienation effect to encourage critical distance and challenge Aristotelian empathy in literature (p. 99).
   • Contribution: By proposing Brechtian techniques for literary analysis, Selden bridges theater criticism and literary studies.
5. Feminist Literary Theory
   • Critique of Gender Representation: Selden examines how patriarchal structures in literature objectify women, using Lucky Jim as a case study (pp. 102–103).
   • Contribution: His analysis aligns with feminist literary criticism by exposing how texts construct women as the “Other” and perpetuate stereotypes.
6. Reader-Response Theory
   • Active Role of the Reader: Selden critiques the traditional notion of the passive reader, emphasizing the reader’s active participation in shaping textual meaning (p. 98).
   • Contribution: This supports reader-response theory by stressing the interpretive agency of readers in literary analysis.
7. Structuralism
   • Nature Imitating Art: Drawing on structuralist ideas, Selden references Wilde’s claim that “nature imitates art,” which parallels structuralism’s emphasis on sign systems shaping reality (p. 97).
   • Contribution: Selden connects structuralist thought to literary analysis, highlighting the constructed nature of meaning.
8. Romantic and Neo-Platonic Traditions
   • Critique of Transcendental Readings: Selden challenges romantic interpretations that seek a singular spiritual truth in texts, using The Tempest as an example (p. 101).
   • Contribution: He redefines these traditions within a contemporary theoretical framework, questioning their relevance to modern critical practice.
9. Anti-Foundationalism
   • Denial of Fixed Knowledge: Selden advocates for anti-foundationalism, rejecting ultimate forms of knowledge and fixed truths in literary studies (p. 103).
   • Contribution: This positions his argument as a critique of traditional methodologies, aligning with post-structuralist principles.

Examples of Critiques Through “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

Literary Work	Traditional Critique	Critique Through Selden’s Theoretical Lens	Theoretical Basis
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Prospero as a benevolent authority figure, safeguarding Miranda and maintaining order.	Prospero represents colonial power, and his treatment of Caliban reflects a colonialist discourse. Caliban’s voice is suppressed (Selden, 1991, p. 100).	Postcolonial Theory, Bakhtinian Dialogism
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Language taught by Prospero is a neutral tool for communication.	Language is ideologically charged; Caliban’s ability to curse demonstrates resistance to Prospero’s colonial control (p. 100).	Bakhtinian Dialogism
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Focus on universal themes such as divine providence and order.	Challenges romantic readings; instead, the text reflects historical and ideological conflicts, including colonization (p. 101).	Deconstruction, Anti-Foundationalism
Kingsley Amis’s Lucky Jim	Margaret is portrayed as a hysterical and manipulative character, embodying stereotypical female traits.	Critiques patriarchal construction of gender, exposing how the text objectifies Margaret and positions her as the “Other” (pp. 102–103).	Feminist Literary Criticism
Oscar Wilde’s Aesthetic Philosophy	Nature as an independent entity, reflecting art as imitation of reality.	Wilde’s idea that “nature imitates art” anticipates structuralist theories about how human sign systems shape perception (p. 97).	Structuralism, Aestheticism
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Miranda as a virtuous character and symbol of moral goodness.	Feminist reading reveals Miranda as an object of male fantasy, confined to patriarchal roles within Prospero’s authority (p. 103).	Feminist Literary Criticism
General Aristotelian Theater	Theater creates empathy and mirrors real life.	Brechtian approach argues for alienation, showing actions as historically conditioned and open to critical scrutiny (p. 99).	Brechtian Literary Criticism
Elizabethan Travel Narratives	Explorations justified as honorable and pious endeavors, civilizing the “savage.”	Frames colonialism as a discourse that constructs natives as inferior and justifies their subjugation (p. 101).	Postcolonial Theory
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	The theme of usurpation focuses on Prospero’s rightful reclamation of his dukedom.	Highlights the occluded usurpation of Caliban’s sovereignty, suppressed by colonialist discourse (p. 101).	Postcolonial Theory, Anti-Foundationalism
Romantic Poetry	Romantic works uncover universal spiritual truths through the author’s vision.	Romantic readings are critiqued for colluding with ethical and religious elements of discourse, ignoring ideological conflicts (p. 101).	Deconstruction, Romantic Critique

Criticism Against “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

• Overemphasis on Theoretical Abstraction
  • Selden’s reliance on dense theoretical frameworks may alienate readers unfamiliar with literary theory, potentially limiting accessibility to a wider audience.
• Limited Practical Application
  • Critics argue that the essay provides insufficient guidance on applying theoretical concepts to broader literary analysis, leaving some interpretations abstract or unresolved.
• Neglect of Traditional Approaches
  • By heavily critiquing “common sense” and traditional readings, Selden risks dismissing approaches that offer valuable historical or moral insights into literature.
• Biased Toward Radical Theories
  • The essay predominantly highlights radical frameworks like postcolonialism, deconstruction, and feminism, potentially sidelining more conservative or balanced perspectives.
• Underrepresentation of Historical Contexts
  • While engaging with colonialist and feminist themes, Selden’s analysis might be criticized for underexploring historical specificities that influenced the creation of the texts he critiques.
• Ambiguity in Defending Theory’s Necessity
  • Although Selden advocates for theory, he does not fully address critiques from scholars who view theory as overly abstract, overly political, or disconnected from textual appreciation.
• Overgeneralization of Common-Sense Criticism
  • The categorization of traditional readings as “common sense” might oversimplify diverse critical practices that do not necessarily fit this label.
• Excessive Reliance on European Frameworks
  • The essay relies heavily on European theorists like Brecht, Derrida, and Bakhtin, potentially marginalizing non-Western critical frameworks and perspectives.
• Potential Dogmatism in Theory Advocacy
  • While critiquing dogmatic approaches in literary studies, Selden’s passionate defense of theory could itself appear dogmatic, privileging certain theoretical perspectives over others.
• Imbalance in Examples
  • The focus on a few works, particularly The Tempest and Lucky Jim, might be seen as limiting in scope, potentially overlooking how theory applies to a broader range of texts.

Representative Quotations from “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Theory is always the enemy of common sense; it is the spirit of subversion in the world of thought.” (p. 96)	Selden positions theory as a critical force that disrupts static interpretations, challenging the illusion of unity and completeness often associated with “common-sense” readings in literary studies.
“What are the common-sense assumptions which contemporary theory seeks to challenge?” (p. 98)	This rhetorical question introduces Selden’s critique of traditional assumptions about textual meaning, including the ideas of authorial intent, fixed meaning, and the passivity of readers in the interpretive process.
“You taught me language; and my profit on’t / Is, I know how to curse.” (Caliban in The Tempest, p. 100)	Quoting Caliban, Selden highlights the ideological dimension of language. Caliban’s resistance reflects the subjugation inherent in Prospero’s “gift” of language, illustrating colonialist discourse in Shakespeare’s text.
“Language cannot be neatly dissociated from social living; it is always contaminated, interleaved, opaquely coloured by layers of semantic deposits.” (p. 100)	Drawing on Bakhtin, Selden argues that language is ideologically charged, rejecting the notion of language as a neutral medium, and emphasizing its role as a site of power struggles and contested meanings.
“Romantic readings assume that the text tells us a certain truth which is communicated to us through the undistorting glass of language.” (p. 101)	Selden critiques romantic readings for treating language as transparent, ignoring its complexity and ideological underpinnings, which are central to modern theoretical approaches.
“The voice of Caliban resists the imperious truths of Prospero, but Caliban’s story has no authority because he is compelled to use Prospero’s language to tell it.” (p. 101)	This statement underscores the power imbalance in The Tempest, illustrating how colonial discourse limits the agency of the colonized by controlling their means of expression.
“Feminists object to the ways in which gender has been represented in literature.” (p. 102)	Selden introduces feminist literary criticism by challenging patriarchal structures in literary texts, emphasizing the need for resistance against male-dominated representations of women.
“Only by reading as a woman can the reader recognize the utterly patriarchal construction of gender in the passage.” (p. 103)	In discussing Lucky Jim, Selden illustrates how feminist theory reshapes interpretations of texts by questioning gender stereotypes and exposing the dominance of male perspectives in literary narratives.
“Deconstruction denies the possibility of ultimate forms of knowledge. It denies all essences and determinate grounds of truth.” (p. 103)	Selden outlines the core principle of deconstruction, highlighting its challenge to foundationalist approaches in literary studies and its role in destabilizing fixed interpretations.
“Do literary studies need literary theory? Does the tired soil need manure? Does a smoke-filled room need fresh air?” (p. 103)	In this metaphorical conclusion, Selden emphasizes the transformative and revitalizing role of theory in literary studies, likening it to essential elements that renew and sustain intellectual growth.

Suggested Readings: “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

1. SELDEN, RAMAN. “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” Critical Survey, vol. 4, no. 3, 1992, pp. 218–25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41555664. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
2. Showalter, Elaine. “Literary Criticism.” Signs, vol. 1, no. 2, 1975, pp. 435–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173056. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
3. Foley, Barbara. “Marxist Literary Criticism.” Marxist Literary Criticism Today, Pluto Press, 2019, pp. 122–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbcd2jf.9. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
4. 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.

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Introduction: “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer

“Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer first appeared in American Literary History, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Autumn 1990), published by Oxford University Press. This seminal essay explores the implications of perspectivism, the concept that facts, values, and truths are constructs shaped by differing human perspectives, within the realm of contemporary literary theory. Fischer examines critical works that argue for the ideological nature of discourse, highlighting both the political urgency and theoretical challenges posed by the acknowledgment that cultural and literary values are mutable and contingent. Key debates include the role of pluralism, the limits of persuasion, and the intersection of ideology with literary judgment. Fischer’s analysis underscores the transformative potential and inherent tensions within literary criticism that confronts institutionalized inequities while navigating its own ideological commitments. The essay remains pivotal in understanding how literary theory negotiates between deconstructive critiques and the pursuit of inclusivity and change.

Summary of “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer

• Constructed Reality:
  • Contemporary literary theory emphasizes that facts, values, and truths are not objective but constructed based on perspectives (Fischer, p. 528).
  • Critics agree on perspectivism but differ in interpreting its political and cultural implications.
• Ideological Nature of Discourse:
  • Language and value systems are shown to be ideologically influenced rather than neutral or objective (Fischer, p. 529).
  • Theoretical insights often motivate political actions to address societal inequities, such as gender and racial hierarchies (Kolodny, p. 529).
• Persuasion and Pluralism:
  • Critics like Ellen Rooney argue pluralism’s belief in universal persuasion oversimplifies the diversity and exclusivity of real communities (Fischer, p. 531).
  • Persuasion tends to work within communities already predisposed to shared values, undermining pluralist ideals of inclusivity (Fischer, p. 530).
• Critique of Pluralism:
  • Rooney criticizes pluralism for incorporating dissent into its framework without genuine transformation, reducing oppositional critiques to a systemic feature (Fischer, p. 532).
  • Pluralist systems often sustain rather than challenge academic and cultural power structures.
• Irony and Liberalism (Rorty’s View):
  • Richard Rorty proposes solidarity as constructed rather than based on essential human nature (Fischer, p. 533).
  • Ironist philosophy questions all absolutes but is deemed irrelevant to public life, focusing instead on individual autonomy (Fischer, p. 535).

Political and Academic Implications

• Canon and Value Judgments:
  • Barbara Herrnstein Smith emphasizes that aesthetic judgments are contingent on cultural, historical, and political factors (Fischer, p. 540).
  • The literary canon persists not due to universal merit but institutional reinforcement and societal interests (Fischer, p. 541).
• Challenges to Antifoundationalism:
  • Stanley Fish argues against the revolutionary potential of antifoundationalism, suggesting that academic practices self-regulate within existing institutional frameworks (Fischer, p. 544).
  • Fish highlights that changes in criticism stem from contextual shifts rather than abstract principles or theoretical interventions (Fischer, p. 545).
• Critique of Theory-Driven Activism:
  • Both Smith and Fish criticize the assumption that theoretical critiques inherently foster radical change (Fischer, p. 546).
  • The practicality of theory is questioned, with emphasis placed on historical and institutional contexts.

Limitations of Perspectivism

• Relativism vs. Action:
  • While perspectivism avoids the rigidity of objectivism, it does not inherently motivate political or social change (Fischer, p. 543).
  • Activists like Rooney struggle with balancing critique and tangible impact within an academic system that absorbs dissent (Fischer, p. 547).
• Irony’s Double-Edged Sword:
  • Rorty’s privatization of irony risks fostering detachment rather than solidarity, leading to potential ethical indifference (Fischer, p. 535).

Concluding Reflections

• Professional Self-Assurance:
  • Fisch and Smith’s minimalistic approach avoids overstating the transformative power of their arguments, reflecting confidence in their professional contexts (Fischer, p. 546).
  • However, this stance can alienate more politically engaged critics who view academic work as a platform for activism (Fischer, p. 547).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer

Term/Concept	Definition	Key Insights/Applications
Perspectivism	The view that facts, values, and truths are not objective or universal but shaped by specific perspectives and contexts.	Highlights the constructed nature of reality and challenges notions of objective truth (Fischer, p. 528).
Ideological Discourse	Language and value systems are inherently shaped by ideological influences rather than being neutral or objective.	Used to critique dominant cultural and academic norms, emphasizing the role of power and ideology (Fischer, p. 529).
Pluralism	The belief in inclusivity and the possibility of universal persuasion through dialogue and shared values.	Criticized for oversimplifying diversity and failing to acknowledge community exclusivity (Rooney, p. 530).
Irony	A philosophical stance that questions absolutes and emphasizes the contingency of all beliefs and values.	Promoted by Richard Rorty as a way to challenge traditional metaphysics while maintaining individual autonomy (Fischer, p. 535).
Solidarity	The idea that unity among individuals is constructed through shared experiences and sensitivities rather than inherent human nature.	Rorty emphasizes the role of literature in fostering solidarity through detailed descriptions of suffering (Fischer, p. 536).
Canon	The collection of literary works deemed valuable or essential by cultural and academic institutions.	Viewed as a contingent construct shaped by historical and institutional interests (Smith, p. 541).
Antifoundationalism	The rejection of foundational principles or absolute truths in favor of context-dependent and contingent reasoning.	Fish argues that it lacks revolutionary potential but provides a realistic framework for understanding institutional practices (p. 544).
Theoretical Activism	The use of theory to critique and subvert traditional structures, with the aim of fostering radical change.	Criticized for its limited practical impact and absorption into academic frameworks (Rooney, p. 546).
Value Contingency	The notion that aesthetic and moral values are shaped by social, political, and cultural factors rather than being universal.	Reinforces the argument that aesthetic judgments reflect specific historical contexts and interests (Smith, p. 540).
Liberal Ironism	A blend of liberalism and irony where personal autonomy is emphasized over collective solidarity.	Advocated by Rorty as a way to maintain individual creativity while navigating the collapse of metaphysical foundations (p. 535).

Contribution of “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of Objectivism in Literary Studies
  The article challenges the notion of objective truths, emphasizing that values, facts, and reason are socially and ideologically constructed (Fischer, p. 528). This reinforces the postmodern critique of universalism in literary theory.
• Reevaluation of Canonical Texts
  By illustrating that canonical texts are products of historical, cultural, and ideological contexts, Fischer builds on Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s perspective that literary value is contingent and subject to change (Fischer, p. 540). This opens space for rethinking and diversifying the literary canon.
• Intersection of Politics and Literary Theory
  Fischer highlights the political implications of literary criticism, such as questioning traditional academic norms and engaging with feminist, multicultural, and activist approaches (Fischer, p. 529). This aligns literary theory with broader sociopolitical debates.
• Critique of Pluralism in Literary Discourse
  Ellen Rooney’s critique of pluralism, discussed in the article, exposes its inherent limitations, arguing that it masks exclusions and fails to accommodate genuine differences in critical communities (Fischer, p. 530).
• Exploration of Irony and Liberalism
  Fischer engages with Richard Rorty’s concept of liberal ironism, showing how irony can dismantle traditional metaphysical assumptions while fostering individual autonomy (Fischer, p. 535). This contributes to debates on the role of philosophy in literary theory.
• Literature as a Tool for Solidarity
  The article supports Rorty’s claim that literature, through its detailed exploration of suffering and difference, can cultivate empathy and solidarity without relying on metaphysical notions of universal humanity (Fischer, p. 536).
• Relevance of Perspectivism to Institutional Critique
  By examining how literary judgments and academic practices are influenced by institutional structures, Fischer underscores the role of perspectivism in critically evaluating the operation of academic systems (Fischer, p. 546).
• Advocacy for Historical and Contextual Approaches
  Both Fischer and the critics he engages argue for the importance of contextualizing literary practices within their historical and social frameworks, moving beyond abstract theoretical claims (Fischer, p. 544).
• Debunking Revolutionary Claims of Antifoundationalism
  Fischer examines Stanley Fish’s argument that antifoundationalist perspectives do not necessarily lead to radical change but instead highlight the embeddedness of criticism within institutional norms (Fischer, p. 544).
• Balance Between Theoretical Skepticism and Practical Engagement
  The article offers a nuanced position that combines the skepticism of traditional foundations with a pragmatic acknowledgment of literature’s role in fostering ethical and political engagement (Fischer, p. 537).

Examples of Critiques Through “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer

Literary Work	Critique Through Perspectivism	Key Theorists/Critical Lens Referenced	Page Reference
Paradise Lost (Milton)	Perspectives on Books 11-12 vary over time due to changing historical and institutional contexts, rather than “objective” merit.	Stanley Fish (Institutional and Antifoundationalist critique)	p. 546
Lolita (Nabokov)	Highlights how literature, through detailed descriptions of cruelty, redefines ethical perceptions without relying on metaphysical claims.	Richard Rorty (Liberal ironism and solidarity through literature)	p. 536
1984 (Orwell)	Orwell’s work reshapes perceptions of political cruelty by offering alternative descriptions, emphasizing literature’s power to create solidarity.	Richard Rorty (Ironist philosophy and contingent values)	p. 538
The Great Tradition	Critiques the canon as mutable constructs shaped by ideological and cultural aspirations, challenging the supposed universality of literary value.	Betty Jean Craige, Ellen Rooney (Ideological critique and canon reevaluation)	p. 529

Criticism Against “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer

• Overemphasis on Relativism
  Critics argue that Fischer’s focus on the contingency of values and knowledge can undermine meaningful critique and ethical grounding in literary theory. By rejecting universal principles, it risks promoting a form of quietism where no position can be strongly defended. (Referenced: p. 542)
• Practical Limitations of Antifoundationalism
  While Fischer aligns with theorists like Stanley Fish and Barbara Herrnstein Smith in rejecting objective values, some argue that this approach offers little practical guidance for achieving change in literature or society. It dismisses foundational claims but fails to propose alternative methodologies. (Referenced: p. 544)
• Inconsistencies in Engagement with Pluralism
  Fischer critiques pluralist approaches for their exclusionary practices yet simultaneously acknowledges their persistence and institutional power. This dual position has been critiqued for lacking a clear stance on how literary theory should move beyond pluralist contradictions. (Referenced: p. 531)
• Marginalization of Activist Perspectives
  Activists like Ellen Rooney seek to dismantle dominant ideological structures, but Fischer’s emphasis on institutional containment suggests that disruption often results in assimilation. This view can seem dismissive of radical efforts to transform literary and cultural hierarchies. (Referenced: p. 547)
• Ambiguity in Resolving “Theory Hope”
  The concept of “theory hope”—the expectation that theory will lead to transformative change—is critically analyzed but not resolved. Fischer appears skeptical of both radical transformation and institutional stability, leaving readers uncertain about the practical implications of his analysis. (Referenced: p. 543)
• Dependency on Established Authority
  By emphasizing the role of institutional structures and “marketplace judgment,” Fischer’s framework has been critiqued for reinforcing existing hierarchies rather than challenging them. This dependency could be seen as undermining his broader critiques of power and ideology. (Referenced: p. 546)
• Insufficient Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
  While the text critiques traditional Western canons, it does not sufficiently incorporate non-Western theories or perspectives, limiting its claim to inclusivity and global applicability. (Referenced indirectly: p. 529)
• Overintellectualization of Solidarity
  Fischer’s alignment with Rorty’s emphasis on solidarity through literature is criticized for being overly intellectual and inaccessible to broader audiences, potentially alienating those outside academic literary circles. (Referenced: p. 535)

Representative Quotations from “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Facts, values, reason, and nature are constructs, not objective, unchanging realities.”	This encapsulates the perspectivist critique of foundationalist assumptions, emphasizing that all knowledge is shaped by cultural, social, and historical factors.
“The ideological nature of discourse encourages critics to question the seemingly objective.”	Highlights how perspectivism challenges claims of neutrality in academic and cultural discourse, making visible the biases within dominant ideologies.
“Solidarity with others is created rather than discovered.”	Suggests that human connections and empathy are socially constructed, opposing essentialist notions of universal humanity or fixed moral truths.
“Theory cannot repair divisions that are already entrenched in the field structure of literature.”	Fischer critiques the limits of literary theory, pointing out its inability to resolve the systemic issues it critiques within academic institutions.
“Pluralism’s strategy for recuperating its critics is to expand the community.”	Critiques pluralism as a self-preserving system that co-opts dissenting voices instead of allowing true radical opposition to thrive.
“Literature increases sensitivity to the particular details of pain and humiliation.”	Fischer underlines the role of literature as a tool for fostering empathy and challenging cruelty, without requiring metaphysical foundations for human values.
“Antipluralism concedes the irreducibility of a reading’s margins, ensuring its marginalization.”	Analyzes how opposition to pluralism often results in further exclusion within academic settings, reinforcing existing structures.
“We liberals have no plausible large-scale scenario for changing the world.”	Reflects on the limitations of liberal ideologies in effecting systemic change, especially in the face of entrenched global inequalities.
“The rule of law is a function of force, rhetoric, preference, and everything else foundationalists fear.”	Deconstructs the idealized concept of legal and ethical principles, arguing that they are outcomes of power dynamics rather than universal truths.
“Change cannot be engineered by theory; it occurs through ordinary, everyday efforts.”	A pragmatic observation on how change happens incrementally and contextually, rather than through abstract theoretical frameworks.

Suggested Readings: “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today” by Michael Fischer

1. Fischer, Michael. “Perspectivism and Literary Theory Today.” American Literary History, vol. 2, no. 3, 1990, pp. 528–49. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/489952. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
2. DE CASTRO, EDUARDO VIVEIROS. “Perspectivism.” Cannibal Metaphysics, edited by Peter Skafish, University of Minnesota Press, 2014, pp. 49–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt17xr4vt.5. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
3. Hales, Steven D., and Robert C. Welshon. “Truth, Paradox, and Nietzschean Perspectivism.” History of Philosophy Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, 1994, pp. 101–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27744612. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
4. Reginster, Bernard. “The Paradox of Perspectivism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 62, no. 1, 2001, pp. 217–33. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2653601. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers

“On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers first appeared in Philosophy and Literature, Volume 18, Number 2, in October 1994. Published by the Johns Hopkins University Press, this article critiques the prevalent approaches to teaching literary theory, including taxonomical surveys, heuristic applications, and radical monist frameworks. Myers argues that these methods often fail to capture the essence of literary theory, reducing it either to a set of doctrines, interpretive techniques, or politically charged imperatives. Instead, he advocates for teaching theory as an active, reflective process that challenges assumptions and provokes critical inquiry, emphasizing its role as an open-ended intellectual endeavor. Myers highlights the danger of authoritarian pedagogy, which stifles critical engagement by presenting theoretical concepts as settled truths. He contends that the true teaching of theory lies in fostering an environment of interrogation and debate, where students are encouraged to grapple with the inherent complexities of theoretical discourse. This article remains significant in literature and literary theory for its insistence on preserving the oppositional and interrogative nature of theory, making it a pivotal contribution to pedagogical philosophy.

Summary of “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers

Theoretical Term/Concept	Description	Context/Significance in the Article
Taxonomical Survey	Teaching theory as a collection of doctrines (e.g., Saussurean linguistics, Marxist criticism).	Criticized for treating theory as static “accomplished facts” and ignoring its dynamic, interrogative nature (p. 326).
Heuristic Approach	Using theory as a toolbox for interpreting texts rather than as a subject of reflection.	Praised for its practicality but critiqued for abandoning the open-ended inquiry that theory demands (p. 328).
Radical Monism	A politically motivated approach to teaching theory, often inspired by thinkers like Paulo Freire.	Criticized for reducing theory to a singular, ideological framework, limiting its capacity for self-interrogation (p. 330).
Oppositional Pedagogy	A teaching method that seeks to challenge dominant cultural norms and ideologies.	Highlighted as a necessary role of theory, but often undermined by the rigidity of pedagogical practices (p. 332).
Social Constructivism	The idea that language, meaning, and the self are products of social and cultural constructions.	Discussed as a foundational assumption of many theories but needs to remain open to questioning (p. 326).
Deconstruction	A method of critique that questions the unity and coherence presumed by traditional criticism.	Praised for scrutinizing interpretive methods, but its misuse risks turning theory into rigid “theoreticism” (p. 328).
Theoreticism	The misapplication of theory as a rigid, instrumental method for analysis rather than an open inquiry.	Seen as a betrayal of theory’s purpose, reducing it to doctrinal or pragmatic use (p. 329).
Authoritarian Pedagogy	Teaching that imposes theoretical frameworks as definitive truths.	Critiqued for stifling intellectual exploration and reinforcing hierarchical power dynamics in education (p. 329).
Paradigm Shift	A significant transformation in the frameworks through which literature is analyzed and interpreted.	Recognized as part of theory’s historical context but misused when treated as definitive and unchallengeable (p. 332).
Illocutionary vs. Perlocutionary Acts	Distinction between the theoretical intent (illocution) and its consequences (perlocution).	Used to argue against treating theoretical texts as prescriptive solutions to interpretive problems (p. 333).
Critical Argument	The process of interrogating and debating theoretical assumptions and conclusions.	Proposed as the true essence of teaching and engaging with theory (p. 334).
Pluralism in Theory	The coexistence of multiple schools of thought without privileging any single perspective.	Critiqued for sometimes masking political or ideological conflicts (p. 330).

Contribution of “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers

Literary Work	Critique Focus	Insights Through Myers’ Perspective
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad	A Marxist critique exploring the colonial and economic ideologies embedded in the text.	Myers would advocate examining how Marxist theory interrogates the economic and social systems in the text while resisting doctrinal rigidity (p. 330).
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald	A deconstructive critique questioning the apparent unity of themes such as the American Dream.	Myers highlights that deconstruction allows for the exposure of contradictions in the text, keeping interpretative possibilities open (p. 328).
“Jane Eyre” by Charlotte Brontë	A feminist critique analyzing gender dynamics and the portrayal of female agency in a patriarchal society.	Myers argues against presenting feminist critiques as settled truths and instead encourages engaging with diverse and oppositional readings (p. 329).
“Ulysses” by James Joyce	A reader-response critique examining how different readers construct meaning from its complex, fragmented narrative.	Myers emphasizes that such critiques should foster open-ended engagement with reader interpretation, avoiding prescriptive methodologies (p. 334).

Criticism Against “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers

Representative Quotations from “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The only way to teach literary theory is to take issue with it.” (p. 326)	Myers emphasizes that teaching literary theory must involve critical engagement and interrogation rather than mere acceptance of theoretical frameworks, encouraging students to challenge assumptions rather than treat theory as dogma.
“The teaching of literary theory as a set of facts is not the teaching of it as theory.” (p. 327)	Myers critiques taxonomical approaches that reduce theory to a historical survey or fixed doctrines, arguing that this method undermines the dynamic and interrogative nature of theoretical inquiry.
“Most teachers would probably agree that genuine learning has not been attained with the ability to recite that-sentences.” (p. 327)	He criticizes rote learning of theoretical concepts (e.g., “Derrida says that…”), highlighting the need for students to actively engage in independent inquiry rather than merely memorizing theoretical propositions.
“To study literary theory for the purpose of extracting from it a useful interpretive strategy is to turn aside from the adventure of questioning.” (p. 328)	Myers warns against the heuristic application of theory as a practical tool for interpretation, arguing that this approach abandons the essence of theory as a platform for intellectual exploration and critical questioning.
“Theory is first of all a substantial historical achievement.” (p. 332)	Myers acknowledges the importance of understanding the historical development of theory, while cautioning against treating theoretical progress as a linear series of paradigm shifts that close off further inquiry.
“Literary theory is a demand for proof and further defense.” (p. 334)	This statement underscores the role of theory in maintaining a culture of skepticism and rigorous argumentation, requiring continuous justification and reevaluation of its principles and claims.
“Oppositional pedagogy falters at theory itself.” (p. 326)	Myers critiques educators who claim to engage in oppositional teaching but fail to critically question the very theories they teach, thereby undermining the oppositional role of literary theory.
“The customary approaches to the teaching of theory… all are based on genuine insight; but each of them misinterprets it.” (p. 332)	While acknowledging the merits of taxonomical, heuristic, and radical monist approaches, Myers argues that each method falls short of adequately engaging with the complexities and open-endedness of theory.
“The best approach to the teaching of theory may be to presume that the texts on one’s syllabus are in error.” (p. 335)	Myers advocates for a pedagogical approach that assumes theoretical texts require interrogation and debate, encouraging students to actively engage in critiquing even authoritative voices in theory.
“Theory is not merely this performance reexpressed in different terms; it is an achievement of a different order.” (p. 333)	Myers argues that theory transcends its practical applications and performance, emphasizing its role as a reflective, intellectual pursuit that questions foundational assumptions and fosters deeper understanding.

Suggested Readings: “On the Teaching of Literary Theory” by David Gershom Myers

1. Goodman, Lorien J. “Teaching Theory after Theory.” Pacific Coast Philology, vol. 42, no. 1, 2007, pp. 110–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25474220. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
2. Wilson, Beth. “Teach the How: Critical Lenses and Critical Literacy.” The English Journal, vol. 103, no. 4, 2014, pp. 68–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484223. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
3. Martin, Wallace. “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom.” College Literature, vol. 9, no. 3, 1982, pp. 174–91. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111480. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
4. Baker, Peter. “Literary Theory and the Role of the University.” College Literature, vol. 22, no. 2, 1995, pp. 1–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112184. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.