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
Critique of Common Teaching Approaches
- Taxonomical Survey: Myers critiques the prevalent taxonomical approach, where theories are treated as static bodies of doctrine (e.g., Saussurean linguistics, deconstruction, Marxist criticism). This method focuses on imparting the historical content of theory but reduces it to “accomplished facts,” failing to convey the interrogative nature of theoretical inquiry (Myers, 1994, p. 326).
- Heuristic Methods: Heuristic approaches, which use theory as interpretive tools for text analysis, are described as pragmatic but fundamentally abandon the essence of theory. Myers argues that this method prioritizes results over the reflective engagement theory requires (p. 328).
- Radical Monism: Inspired by thinkers like Paulo Freire, this approach links theory to political praxis, aiming for radical social change. Myers warns that it risks reducing theory to a singular, uncritical perspective, closing off further interrogation (p. 330).
The Problem of Authoritarian Pedagogy
- Myers identifies a trend toward authoritarian teaching, where theory is presented as a dominant body of knowledge to be learned rather than questioned. This model stifles genuine intellectual engagement and transforms theory into a rigid structure that discourages critical inquiry (p. 329).
- He warns against the institutionalization of theory, which aligns with professional norms rather than fostering a love for theorizing. This approach compromises theory’s oppositional and interrogative spirit (p. 331).
The Role of Theory as Interrogative Practice
- Opposition to Cultural Authority: Literary theory, Myers asserts, should remain oppositional, challenging entrenched norms of literary criticism and interpretation (p. 332).
- Emphasis on Open-Ended Inquiry: True engagement with theory requires treating it as an ongoing debate rather than a settled body of knowledge. Myers highlights the importance of viewing theoretical texts as arguments to be scrutinized, not authoritative pronouncements (p. 333).
Theory’s Value in Education
- Myers recognizes the merits of traditional approaches: the taxonomical survey emphasizes the historical achievement of theory, heuristic methods focus on engagement, and radical monism underscores theory’s oppositional nature. However, he calls for a balanced approach that integrates these insights while prioritizing interrogation and reflection (p. 334).
- Practical Pedagogical Recommendation: Teachers should encourage students to question theoretical texts actively, challenging even the authorities assigned in the syllabus. Myers advocates for fostering intellectual rigor through debate and critical engagement (p. 335).
Conclusion: Theory as Argument
- Myers concludes that theory is not a static framework or a means to predefined ends but a dynamic, argumentative process. Its teaching must reflect this by prioritizing open inquiry, self-critique, and the pursuit of unresolved questions (p. 336).
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
1. Challenging the Taxonomical Approach in Literary Theory
- Critique of Static Doctrines: Myers argues that presenting literary theories (e.g., Saussurean linguistics, Marxism, deconstruction) as fixed doctrines fails to engage students in theoretical inquiry (Myers, 1994, p. 326).
- Contribution: Reinforces the idea that literary theory should be a dynamic and interrogative process rather than a static body of knowledge, encouraging critical thinking in the classroom.
2. Highlighting the Importance of Deconstruction
- Questioning Norms of Interpretation: Myers recognizes the contribution of deconstruction in critiquing traditional methods, such as the New Criticism’s focus on unity and coherence (p. 328).
- Contribution: Positions deconstruction not as an alternative interpretive strategy but as a methodological reminder that all theoretical frameworks should remain open to scrutiny.
3. Critique of Theoreticism
- Definition: Myers introduces the term “theoreticism” to describe the reduction of theory to rigid tools for interpretation, which he views as a misuse of theoretical frameworks (p. 329).
- Contribution: Adds a meta-critical perspective to discussions on how theory is applied in literary studies, promoting a deeper understanding of theory’s role as an evolving critique.
4. Promoting Oppositional Pedagogy
- Opposing Cultural Authority: Myers emphasizes that theory should challenge existing cultural norms and ideologies, rather than reinforcing them (p. 332).
- Contribution: Reaffirms the oppositional nature of theories like feminism, Marxism, and psychoanalysis, positioning them as tools for questioning power structures.
5. Addressing Pluralism in Literary Theory
- Critique of Uncritical Pluralism: Myers critiques pluralism in literary theory for masking underlying political conflicts and failing to address dominant cultural ideologies (p. 330).
- Contribution: Offers a nuanced critique of pluralistic approaches, advocating for deeper engagement with the political implications of literary theories like New Historicism.
6. Reconceptualizing Radical Monism
- Critique of Political Instrumentalization: Myers critiques radical monist approaches, inspired by Freirean pedagogy, for over-politicizing theory and turning it into a singular ideological tool (p. 330).
- Contribution: Challenges theories like Marxist criticism to remain open-ended and theoretical rather than being reduced to tools for political praxis.
7. Illuminating the Role of Theoretical Debate
- Theory as Argument: Myers argues that theory should not be treated as a prescriptive methodology but as a reflective struggle over unresolved problems (p. 334).
- Contribution: Encourages theories like structuralism, reader-response criticism, and post-structuralism to be engaged as sites of critical debate rather than definitive answers.
8. Re-emphasizing Epistemic Inquiry
- Role of Critical Engagement: Myers suggests that literary theory should interrogate presuppositions, drawing attention to epistemic assumptions in theories like psychoanalysis and feminism (p. 333).
- Contribution: Advocates for teaching theory as a method of inquiry that encourages students to challenge and reexamine theoretical foundations.
9. Revitalizing the Pedagogy of Literary Theory
- Teaching through Contradiction: Myers encourages teachers to adopt a pedagogy that questions even the theories they advocate, fostering an environment of critical dialogue (p. 336).
- Contribution: Supports a transformative approach to theories like structuralism and New Criticism by promoting interrogation over rote learning.
10. Reaffirming the Historical Context of Literary Theory
- Historical Achievements of Theory: Myers highlights the significant historical contributions of linguistic and structuralist frameworks (e.g., Saussurean linguistics) (p. 332).
- Contribution: Encourages a balanced appreciation of the historical and intellectual development of theories without treating them as final solutions.
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
1. Overemphasis on Theoretical Interrogation
- Myers’ insistence on treating literary theory solely as an open-ended debate might overlook the practical benefits of structured, systematic teaching methods.
- Critics argue that presenting theory purely as an argumentative process can confuse students who need foundational knowledge before engaging in advanced critiques.
2. Undermining Taxonomical and Heuristic Approaches
- While Myers critiques the taxonomical and heuristic methods, he may undervalue their role in introducing students to diverse theoretical frameworks.
- These approaches can serve as stepping stones for students to later engage with theory more critically.
3. Idealistic View of Pedagogy
- Myers’ call for a fully interrogative and oppositional teaching model might be seen as idealistic, particularly in institutional settings constrained by curricula, time, and assessment demands.
- Critics suggest that his vision may be impractical for educators working within rigid academic frameworks.
4. Limited Discussion of Practical Alternatives
- Myers critiques existing approaches (e.g., taxonomical, heuristic, and radical monist) but does not provide a detailed, actionable alternative pedagogical model.
- This lack of specificity leaves educators without clear guidance on how to implement his proposed vision in real-world teaching contexts.
5. Potential Alienation of Students
- The encouragement of constant questioning and skepticism might overwhelm or alienate students, especially those unfamiliar with the complexities of literary theory.
- Critics point out that some level of structure and authority in teaching can be beneficial for student engagement and comprehension.
6. Insufficient Focus on Political Contexts
- While Myers critiques the over-politicization of theory (e.g., in radical monism), he may understate the importance of linking theoretical frameworks to broader societal and political realities.
- This could limit the applicability of his arguments in disciplines where political engagement is integral, such as feminist and postcolonial studies.
7. Overgeneralization of Pedagogical Practices
- Myers’ critique might oversimplify the diversity of teaching methods used in literary studies, assuming uniformity where there is considerable variation.
- Critics suggest that many educators already integrate elements of interrogation, opposition, and debate alongside traditional methods.
8. Neglecting Historical Context
- Myers’ dismissal of historical context in favor of purely interrogative approaches might undermine the value of understanding how theories have developed over time.
- Critics argue that historical grounding provides crucial insights for situating and critiquing theoretical arguments.
9. Risk of Infinite Regression
- Myers’ insistence on constantly questioning all theoretical premises could lead to an endless cycle of skepticism, hindering the development of coherent interpretations or applications.
- This approach risks paralyzing students and scholars by discouraging definitive conclusions or practical usage of theory.
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.