Introduction: “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán
“Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán first appeared in 1999, as part of the scholarly discourse around literary theory and its intersections with literary expression. Presented during the “Literatures of Theory” conference at Janus Pannonius University, Kálmán’s work delves into the fundamental ambiguity between literature and theory, questioning if and how theoretical texts can be read as literary works and vice versa. Kálmán explores this boundary by examining the stylistic and rhetorical features that could attribute a sense of “literariness” to theoretical discourse. His approach is notably inspired by Russian Formalism’s concept of literariness (“literaturnost”) but extends beyond by acknowledging the paradoxes that this theoretical-literary interplay evokes. Through examples such as Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons,” Kálmán illustrates the spectrum where theoretical texts can possess literary qualities and literary texts can engage with theoretical concerns. The importance of Kálmán’s insights lies in his assertion that analyzing the literary techniques in theoretical writing—such as metaphor, narrative form, and rhetorical structures—can reveal new dimensions of understanding. This work highlights the layered complexity in categorizing texts strictly as literary or theoretical and emphasizes that readers’ perceptions and interpretative frameworks play a significant role in such classifications.
Summary of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán
- Conceptual Tension between Literature and Theory: Kálmán discusses the unavoidable “conceptual essentialism or fundamentalism” that arises when distinguishing between literature and theory. He suggests that boundaries exist but are often blurred, with theoretical texts possessing “textual, tropical or generic” qualities that can give them a literary essence.
- Literariness as a Construct: Drawing from Russian Formalism’s concept of literaturnost (literariness), Kálmán posits that while literariness is a “disqualified concept,” it still offers valuable insights. He proposes exploring “several levels of literariness” in theoretical texts, despite the lack of a definitive “core” of what makes a text literary.
- Blurred Boundaries in Theoretical Texts: Kálmán explores how certain theoretical works embody literary traits, suggesting that both literary and theoretical texts are crafted in a manner that may “deconstruct the distinction” between the two.
- Case Studies of Literary-Theoretical Texts: Using Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” and Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Loose Canons” as examples, Kálmán shows how seemingly theoretical texts employ “highly poetized and rhetorized” language or narrative devices, suggesting a literary nature within theoretical discourse.
- Influence of Interpretative Traditions: Kálmán emphasizes the role of readers’ expectations and scholarly conventions in defining a text’s status, arguing that sometimes “it is the history of their interpretation, the tradition of understanding” that grants theoretical value to certain literary texts.
- Multiplicity of Reading Conventions: The paper examines the interpretative flexibility that allows texts like Nietzsche or Derrida’s works to be viewed through both literary and theoretical lenses. Kálmán highlights the “simultaneous function” of different reading conventions when engaging with such works.
- Exploration of Genre and Stylistic Choices in Theory: Kálmán points out the presence of genre elements—such as “dialogue in Plato or Diderot” or “lyrical structures in Barthes”—in theoretical texts, underscoring how these choices affect their reception as either literary or academic works.
- Challenges of Identifying Literariness: Kálmán notes the inherent challenges in categorizing a text as literary or theoretical, acknowledging that “we can never find the gist of literariness” due to the subjective nature of interpretation and the communicative context of each reading.
- Educational and Scholarly Implications: Lastly, Kálmán reflects on how emphasizing the literary nature of theoretical texts in academic settings may lead students to adopt more “subjective accounts” or “literary intertextuality” in their analyses, impacting traditional literary studies.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán
| Literary Term/Concept | Description | Significance in “Literariness of Theory” |
| Literariness (Literaturnost) | A concept from Russian Formalism referring to the qualities that make a text “literary” as opposed to other forms of writing. | Kálmán builds upon this concept to analyze theoretical texts for “literary” characteristics, suggesting that theory can adopt literary elements without becoming strictly “literature.” He critiques the disqualification of this term yet argues for its usefulness in understanding theoretical discourse. |
| Conceptual Essentialism | The philosophical tendency to define concepts like “literature” or “theory” with inherent, unchanging boundaries. | Kálmán argues that this tendency limits understanding, as these boundaries are often blurred in practice. He suggests that it is more productive to acknowledge the fluidity between literature and theory rather than adhering to strict definitions. |
| Textual Tropes | Figurative or rhetorical devices, such as metaphors or irony, that are typically associated with literary texts. | Kálmán explores how theoretical texts may employ these tropes, intentionally or otherwise, to engage readers, and argues that these tropes can lend a literary quality to theoretical writing, as seen in Barthes’s use of rhetorical style. |
| Intertextuality | The relationship between texts, where one text references or builds upon the ideas or style of another. | Kálmán notes the role of intertextuality in blending literature with theory, as theoretical texts often reference literary works (e.g., Derrida’s engagement with Nietzsche). He suggests that intertextual references can enrich theoretical texts, lending them layers traditionally associated with literature. |
| Genre Blurring | The merging or crossover of genres, such as the overlap between narrative, lyrical, and theoretical forms. | Kálmán highlights this concept by pointing to works like Gates’s “Loose Canons” and Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”, which incorporate narrative or poetic elements within theoretical arguments, challenging clear genre distinctions and enhancing the text’s complexity. |
| Narrative Structures | Traditional storytelling techniques, including plot, character, and temporality, typically found in literary texts. | Kálmán suggests that theoretical texts sometimes adopt narrative structures, making them more engaging and possibly literary. He examines whether historical narratives (like those of Tacitus) can be seen as literary due to their narrative qualities, despite being classified as non-literary by conventional standards. |
| Metaphorical Language | The use of metaphor to express ideas indirectly or symbolically, often found in poetic and literary language. | Kálmán identifies metaphor as a feature in theoretical texts that adds a literary dimension, citing examples where theorists, such as Hayden White, use metaphorical language, which shapes readers’ perceptions and interpretations in ways similar to literature. |
| Rhetorical Devices | Techniques of persuasion and emphasis, such as repetition, irony, and rhetorical questions, often used in literary writing. | Kálmán discusses how rhetorical devices can render theoretical texts literary in feel. Barthes’s use of “highly poetized and rhetorized paragraphs” exemplifies this, demonstrating how rhetorical style can make theoretical discourse appear literary. |
| Aestheticism of Theory | The notion that theoretical writing can be appreciated for its aesthetic or artistic qualities, not just its intellectual content. | Kálmán raises this concept to discuss how theoretical texts may be valued similarly to literature for their style, language, and presentation, citing examples of theorists like Barthes and Sontag, whose works are often seen as both intellectually and aesthetically enriching. |
| Reception Theory | A framework that focuses on the reader’s role in interpreting a text, based on their expectations and interpretive history. | Kálmán emphasizes that a text’s classification as literary or theoretical can be influenced by “the history of interpretation” and readers’ perceptions. He highlights how interpretive traditions shape our understanding of texts like Borges’s “Pierre Ménard”, demonstrating how reception can impact a text’s categorization. |
| Irony | A rhetorical device where meaning is conveyed through contradiction or contrast, often to highlight complexity or ambiguity. | Kálmán discusses irony as a tool in theoretical discourse that can blur the line between literature and theory. He mentions Berel Lang’s ironic take on reading a telephone book as literary, which illustrates how irony can challenge or subvert conventional classifications of texts. |
Contribution of “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán to Literary Theory/Theories
- Russian Formalism and Literariness
Kálmán revives and reinterprets the Russian Formalist concept of literariness (literaturnost’), arguing that theoretical texts can exhibit characteristics traditionally associated with literature. By suggesting that theoretical writing can be analyzed for “several levels of literariness”, Kálmán provides a framework where formalist concepts, such as textual structure and stylistic devices, can be applied to non-literary works, broadening the scope of Russian Formalism. - Structuralism and Semiotics
Through his discussion of Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode”, Kálmán contributes to structuralist and semiotic theories by showing how theoretical works can adopt structural literary forms. Barthes, a key figure in structuralism, is noted for his “long, sarmentose sentences” and “catalogues” that give his theoretical work a narrative-like flow. This suggests that structuralist approaches to meaning-making are themselves open to literary interpretation, expanding the way we view semiotic and structuralist texts as narrative-like constructs. - Deconstruction and Derridean Influence
Kálmán’s work echoes Derrida’s deconstruction by challenging the essentialist binary of literature vs. theory. He notes that theoretical texts often blur the “distinction between discourses,” suggesting an inherent “deconstructive” quality within certain theoretical works. This aligns with Derrida’s view that textual meaning is always deferred and context-dependent, implying that the boundary between literary and theoretical texts is fluid and interpretively constructed. - Reception Theory and Reader-Response
By highlighting the “history of interpretation” and “tradition of understanding” in how we classify texts, Kálmán’s work contributes to Reception Theory. He argues that our perception of a text as literary or theoretical is influenced by “reading conventions” and the interpretive history surrounding it. This aligns with Reception Theory, which asserts that meaning is created by the reader, not fixed within the text. Kálmán’s examples, such as Borges’s “Pierre Ménard”, reinforce the idea that reader perception plays a central role in determining a text’s classification. - Intertextuality and Dialogism
Kálmán’s notion that theoretical texts incorporate “intertextual references” resonates with Bakhtin’s dialogism, where all texts are viewed as interconnected dialogues with other texts. By examining how theoretical texts reference literary works and genres (e.g., Nietzsche and Derrida), Kálmán illustrates the dialogic nature of theory and its dependence on other texts for meaning, suggesting that theoretical texts are not isolated but part of a broader literary conversation. - Aesthetic Theory and the Essay Tradition
Kálmán explores the aesthetic dimension of theoretical writing, drawing on the essay tradition from Montaigne to Barthes. By examining the “artistic qualities” in theoretical texts, he contributes to Aesthetic Theory, positing that theory can be appreciated not only for intellectual content but also for form and beauty. This aligns theoretical discourse with the aesthetic focus of literature, allowing theoretical works to be seen as stylistically sophisticated artifacts. - Postmodernism and Genre Blurring
Kálmán’s analysis aligns with postmodernism, especially its skepticism toward rigid genre classifications. By discussing how texts like Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Canon Confidential” can be both a “theoretical work” and a “pastime entertainment”, he supports a postmodern view that challenges the separation of high and low culture, theory and fiction, and narrative and exposition, encouraging a more integrated understanding of textual forms.
Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán
| Literary Work | Critique through “Literariness of Theory” | Explanation of Kálmán’s Approach |
| Roland Barthes’s “Systeme de la Mode” | Kálmán argues that Barthes’s text exhibits literary qualities such as “long, sarmentose sentences,” use of colons and semi-colons, and cataloguing, which lend it a poetic, almost narrative structure.** | Kálmán’s critique highlights the blurred line between literature and theory, suggesting that Barthes’s theoretical writing incorporates stylistic and rhetorical elements that make it readable as a literary text. By examining Barthes’s language and structure, Kálmán shows that theoretical texts can adopt characteristics of narrative and poetic forms. |
| Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s “Canon Confidential” | Kálmán examines Gates’s work as a detective story that parodies academic canon debates. He notes the intertextual references to Raymond Chandler and the use of first-person narrative typical of detective fiction. | Through this example, Kálmán illustrates genre blending in theoretical texts. Gates’s text is both a reflection on canon formation and an engaging story, suggesting that theoretical arguments can be constructed within familiar literary genres, challenging the strict division between fiction and academic discourse. |
| Borges’s “Pierre Ménard, Author of the Quixote” | Kálmán uses Borges’s story to show how theoretical ideas can be embedded in fiction, arguing that the story explores interpretive history and intertextuality. | By examining Borges’s fictional engagement with literary theory, Kálmán demonstrates the dialogic relationship between literature and theory. The story’s focus on authorship and interpretation aligns with theoretical questions, revealing how fiction can serve as a medium for philosophical and theoretical reflection. |
| Susan Sontag’s “Against Interpretation” | Kálmán suggests that Sontag’s essay, while a piece of criticism, possesses an aesthetic and rhetorical style that makes it engaging as a literary text. The lyrical prose in her essay elevates it beyond standard criticism. | Through Sontag’s work, Kálmán explores the aesthetic potential in critical writing. He argues that Sontag’s style demonstrates how essays can be both intellectually rigorous and artistically compelling, thus challenging the boundaries of literary theory by framing criticism itself as an art form. |
Criticism Against “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán
- Ambiguity in Defining Literariness: Kálmán’s exploration relies on the concept of “literariness” from Russian Formalism, which he acknowledges as “disqualified.” Critics argue that this undefined and ambiguous concept weakens his analysis, making it difficult to establish a clear distinction between literary and theoretical elements.
- Overextension of Literary Qualities to Theory: Kálmán’s attempt to find literary qualities in theoretical texts is sometimes seen as forced or overstretched. Some critics suggest that not all rhetorical or structural elements in theory equate to literariness and that his approach may exaggerate the artistic aspects of theoretical writing.
- Lack of Practical Application or Typology: Although Kálmán proposes that theoretical texts can be systematically reviewed for their literary traits, he does not offer a concrete typology or framework to evaluate these traits consistently. This omission limits the practical applicability of his ideas, leaving readers without a clear method for analysis.
- Potential Undermining of Theoretical Rigor: By emphasizing aesthetic and stylistic aspects in theoretical works, Kálmán risks downplaying the primary intellectual and logical functions of theory. Critics argue that this approach may lead to the perception that theory is judged more on style than on substantive content or argumentative rigor.
- Subjectivity in Reader Reception: Kálmán’s argument heavily relies on reader-response perspectives, suggesting that reader interpretation determines whether a text is perceived as literary or theoretical. This subjective approach may undermine the objective analysis of texts, as it implies that categorization is more dependent on personal perception than textual qualities.
- Challenges to Academic Boundaries: Kálmán’s blurring of literature and theory has faced criticism for potentially eroding academic boundaries. Some scholars argue that distinct disciplines serve important purposes, and merging them could dilute the unique methodologies and epistemological frameworks of both literary and theoretical studies.
Representative Quotations from “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The very terms literature and theory cannot avoid the conceptual essentialism or fundamentalism…” | Kálmán critiques the inherent essentialism in defining literature and theory as separate entities. This statement introduces his argument about the blurred boundaries and the complexity in distinguishing between literary and theoretical texts. |
| “There may be a systematic review of how a theoretical text is formed in order to be taken as a more or less literary one.” | Here, Kálmán proposes the possibility of systematically analyzing theoretical texts for literary qualities, suggesting a new approach to literary theory that considers aesthetics and style alongside intellectual content. |
| “The concept of literariness (literaturnost’) remains useful even if disqualified.” | Despite acknowledging its disqualification, Kálmán finds value in the Russian Formalist concept of literariness, using it to explore literary qualities in theoretical texts, thus reinterpreting an old concept for contemporary analysis. |
| “The reader… always has some theories of what he or she is up to with his or her reading activity.” | This reflects Kálmán’s engagement with reception theory, emphasizing that readers bring interpretive frameworks that influence their experience and understanding of texts, bridging literary and theoretical interpretations. |
| “Do not take this sentence too seriously; here I must make a number of qualifications.” | Kálmán’s ironic tone reveals his awareness of the complexity and limitations of his own argument, acknowledging that the boundaries between literature and theory are more nuanced and require qualifications. |
| “The idea rests on the disqualified concept of Russian Formalism of literariness.” | Kálmán reiterates the foundation of his argument, connecting his exploration to the Russian Formalist notion of literariness, which focuses on stylistic and structural elements that distinguish literary texts from other forms of writing. |
| “We could perhaps take Gates’s funny story as nothing more than a funny story, a pastime entertainment of an academic.” | This quotation highlights Kálmán’s perspective on genre blending, where even seemingly simple or humorous texts can hold theoretical significance, challenging the notion that theory must be serious or detached from literary techniques. |
| “All we can perhaps do is to give account of our own conventions.” | Here, Kálmán reflects on the subjective nature of literary analysis, suggesting that our interpretations are influenced by personal or cultural conventions rather than an objective evaluation of a text’s qualities. |
| “Theoretical texts can be literary in form without abandoning their intellectual rigor.” | Kálmán argues that theory does not lose its validity or depth by adopting literary characteristics, presenting a balanced view that values both form and substance in theoretical discourse. |
| “It may become apparent that Barthes’ sentences are extremely long… the terms written with capitals dangerously resemble the characters of a story.” | This description of Barthes’s style exemplifies Kálmán’s point that certain theoretical texts exhibit stylistic features of literary texts, illustrating the potential for narrative or character-like qualities in theoretical writing. |
Suggested Readings: “Literariness of Theory” by György C. Kálmán
- Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1970, pp. 7–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468585. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
- Brady, Patrick. “Chaos Theory, Control Theory, and Literary Theory or: A Story of Three Butterflies.” Modern Language Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, 1990, pp. 65–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3195061. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
- Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.