Introduction: “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
“Philosophy and the Crisis of Contemporary Literary Theory” by Suresh Raval first appeared in The Monist, Vol. 69, No. 1, in January 1986, published by Oxford University Press. This seminal article examines the epistemological and philosophical tensions within literary criticism, addressing the disintegration of traditional frameworks due to the rise of post-structuralist and deconstructionist theories. Raval critiques the assumption of universal, determinate meaning in traditional literary theory, juxtaposing it with the postmodern embrace of indeterminacy and historicity. Central to his argument is the notion that “the crisis of contemporary literary theory consists… in the fact that contemporary literary theory is unable to come to terms with the implications of a loss of an Archimedean position from which to talk about literature and society.” The article underscores the importance of recognizing the historical contingency of critical practices and emphasizes dialogue and interpretative plurality as pathways to revitalizing literary theory amidst its crisis.
Summary of “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
1. The Anxiety in Contemporary Literary Theory
- Raval addresses the prevalent crisis in literary criticism, emphasizing its loss of coherence as a discipline with clear objectives and methods. He attributes this to the challenge posed by post-structuralist and deconstructionist theories, which question long-held assumptions about meaning and objectivity (Raval, 1986, p. 119).
- The “hermeneutic of suspicion” replaces the “hermeneutic of belief,” undermining traditional epistemologies and canonical notions of text and meaning (p. 120).
2. Deconstruction and Indeterminacy
- Deconstruction introduces radical indeterminacy, destabilizing the foundations of modernist critical frameworks such as New Criticism, structuralism, and psychoanalysis (p. 121).
- This critique paradoxically relies on a degree of certainty, revealing internal contradictions in theories that attempt to dismantle traditional notions of meaning (p. 122).
3. Structuralism’s Evolution and Crisis
- Structuralism’s initial aim to uncover universal linguistic and cultural structures evolved into a historicist approach, recognizing the temporality and fluidity of conventions (p. 123).
- This shift paved the way for post-structuralism, which critiques structuralism’s residual universalism and its attempt to historicize itself (p. 124).
4. Gadamer and the Historicity of Meaning
- Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics offer a middle ground between determinacy and indeterminacy. Gadamer views meaning as a historical and contingent product of cultural interactions, opposing the rigidity of objectivity and the extremes of deconstruction (p. 125).
- This perspective suggests that meaning emerges through the dialogue between text and interpreter, bridging historical horizons (p. 126).
5. The Institutional Nature of Criticism
- Raval highlights the institutional embeddedness of criticism, which shapes its methodologies and limitations. While institutions foster intellectual rigor, they also perpetuate outdated or restrictive practices (p. 127).
- He calls for self-criticism within institutions to avoid reinforcing dogmatic or self-serving critical frameworks (p. 128).
6. Criticism’s Relation to Philosophy and History
- The crisis in literary theory mirrors philosophical shifts from metaphysics to epistemology. Raval critiques the legacy of Enlightenment positivism, which sought universal, objective frameworks for understanding literature and culture (p. 129).
- He argues for a historicized understanding of criticism, where theoretical insights are provisional and tied to specific cultural and historical contexts (p. 130).
7. The Role of Deconstruction and New Criticism
- Despite their differences, deconstruction and New Criticism share a focus on close textual analysis. However, Raval warns against conflating their methods, as each operates on distinct theoretical principles (p. 131).
- He critiques deconstruction’s overemphasis on negative critique, advocating for a more constructive engagement with literature (p. 132).
8. Historicizing Literary Theory
- Raval stresses the importance of understanding the historical obsessions of literary traditions. He argues that these insights can enrich contemporary criticism by revealing how foundationalist philosophies continue to influence modern practices (p. 133).
- The historicizing approach allows for a nuanced engagement with past and present critical challenges without discarding valuable traditional insights (p. 134).
9. Conclusion: Towards Provisional Theories
- The perceived crisis in literary theory stems from the loss of a unified, foundational framework. However, Raval views this as an opportunity for richer, more flexible approaches to criticism (p. 135).
- He advocates for theories as provisional tools shaped by specific contexts, enabling critics to address contemporary cultural and literary concerns while remaining open to historical perspectives (p. 136).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
| Term/Concept | Definition/Description | Context in Raval’s Analysis |
| Hermeneutic of Suspicion | An interpretive approach that questions established beliefs, assumptions, and the “truth” of texts. | Raval contrasts this with the “hermeneutic of belief,” highlighting its role in challenging traditional epistemologies (p. 120). |
| Indeterminacy of Meaning | The idea that meanings are not fixed or absolute but fluid and contingent on interpretation and context. | Central to deconstruction, this challenges traditional theories that posit determinate and universal meanings (p. 121). |
| Deconstruction | A critical theory that seeks to expose contradictions and instabilities in texts, emphasizing indeterminacy. | Raval discusses its impact on undermining modernist and structuralist critical frameworks (p. 122). |
| Structuralism | A theoretical framework focusing on underlying structures (e.g., language) that shape human culture. | Raval traces its evolution from universalist ambitions to historicist insights, leading to post-structuralism (p. 123). |
| Post-Structuralism | A critique of structuralism that emphasizes the historicity, instability, and multiplicity of meaning. | Identified as the culmination of structuralism’s self-critique and the basis for contemporary theoretical challenges (p. 124). |
| Historicity of Meaning | The concept that meaning is shaped by historical and cultural contexts rather than being universal. | Central to Gadamer’s hermeneutics, this offers a resolution to the debate between determinacy and indeterminacy (p. 126). |
| Institutional Nature of Criticism | The idea that criticism is shaped and constrained by its institutional contexts and practices. | Raval critiques institutions for perpetuating outdated practices while emphasizing their importance for critical rigor (p. 127). |
| Epistemological Foundationalism | The belief in universal, objective frameworks as the basis for knowledge and criticism. | Raval critiques this legacy of Enlightenment thought for its inadequacy in addressing contemporary critical problems (p. 129). |
| Negative Dialectic | A form of critique that exposes inadequacies in established theories and practices. | Raval connects this to deconstruction and its focus on questioning traditional critical frameworks (p. 131). |
| Close Textual Analysis | A method of critical reading focusing on detailed analysis of texts to uncover meanings. | Shared by New Criticism and deconstruction, though their theoretical foundations differ significantly (p. 131). |
| Reader-Response Theory | A theory emphasizing the reader’s role in constructing the meaning of a text. | Critiqued for its potential narcissism and overemphasis on the reader’s authority (p. 122). |
| Fusion of Horizons | Gadamer’s concept of understanding as a dialogue between the interpreter’s perspective and the text’s context. | A proposed resolution to the dichotomy between determinacy and indeterminacy in interpretation (p. 125). |
| Pragmatist Historicism | The approach of evaluating theories as tools suited to specific historical contexts rather than universal truths. | Advocated by Raval as a way to reconcile competing theoretical frameworks (p. 135). |
| Canonical Authority | The traditional notion of certain texts or interpretations as holding universal or timeless significance. | Raval critiques this as undermined by contemporary challenges to objectivity and determinacy (p. 120). |
Contribution of “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Critique of Universalism in Traditional Literary Theories
- Raval challenges the universalist ambitions of traditional theories like New Criticism and structuralism, arguing that their reliance on determinate meaning and objectivity is untenable in the face of postmodern critiques (Raval, 1986, p. 120).
- He critiques their epistemological foundations, which are rooted in Enlightenment positivism, for failing to account for the historical and cultural contingency of meaning (p. 129).
2. Advancement of Hermeneutics
- Raval highlights Hans-Georg Gadamer’s concept of the historicity of understanding, emphasizing that meaning is shaped by a dialogue between the interpreter and the text, across historical horizons (p. 126).
- This perspective counters the extremes of both traditional objectivism and radical indeterminacy by situating interpretation within historical and cultural contexts (p. 125).
3. Integration of Deconstruction’s Insights
- While critical of deconstruction’s radical rejection of determinate meaning, Raval acknowledges its value in exposing the limitations of traditional epistemological frameworks (p. 122).
- He credits deconstruction for destabilizing entrenched ideas about text, meaning, and critical authority, thereby fostering a broader interrogation of literary theory (p. 123).
4. Criticism as an Institutional Activity
- Raval introduces the concept of criticism as an institutional practice, shaped by academic and socio-political contexts. This recognition shifts focus from purely theoretical concerns to the practical conditions under which criticism operates (p. 127).
- He warns against the dogmatic practices within institutions that can stifle innovation, advocating for self-critical institutional reform (p. 128).
5. Reevaluation of Structuralism
- The article traces the evolution of structuralism, from its early universalist aims to its historicist turn, which acknowledged the temporality and fluidity of linguistic and cultural conventions (p. 124).
- Raval underscores how this shift ultimately paved the way for post-structuralist critiques, making structuralism a bridge between modernism and postmodernism (p. 124).
6. Historicizing Criticism
- Raval emphasizes the importance of historicizing literary criticism, encouraging critics to contextualize their theoretical approaches within broader historical, cultural, and intellectual movements (p. 133).
- He argues that understanding the historical obsessions of earlier critics and philosophers enriches contemporary theory by revealing the continuities and ruptures in critical traditions (p. 134).
7. Critique of Reader-Response Theory
- Raval critiques certain forms of reader-response theory, particularly Stanley Fish’s emphasis on interpretive communities, as potentially self-referential and narcissistic (p. 122).
- He highlights the tension between celebrating the reader’s authority and maintaining the coherence of critical traditions (p. 123).
8. Pragmatist Approach to Literary Theory
- Raval advocates for a pragmatist and historicist approach, treating literary theories as provisional tools suited to specific contexts rather than as universal frameworks (p. 135).
- This stance promotes flexibility and openness in critical practice, allowing for the coexistence of competing theories without necessitating their unification or hierarchy (p. 136).
9. Reaffirmation of Criticism’s Relevance
- Raval counters the pessimism surrounding the “crisis” in contemporary literary theory by framing it as an opportunity for creative rethinking and innovation (p. 135).
- He emphasizes the vitality of criticism in addressing contemporary cultural and intellectual challenges, even amidst theoretical fragmentation (p. 136).
Examples of Critiques Through “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
| Literary Work | Type of Critique | Critique Framework | Discussion in Raval’s Work |
| Paradise Lost (John Milton) | Reader-Response Critique | Emphasizes the role of readers in reconstructing meaning and blurring boundaries between literature and criticism. | Geoffrey Hartman’s stance where the reader becomes the creator of the work is critiqued for undermining traditional authority (p. 122). |
| Hamlet (William Shakespeare) | Deconstructive Critique | Questions the certainty of meaning and highlights the indeterminacy of textual interpretation through the lens of deconstruction. | Discussed in relation to how radical critiques destabilize canonical interpretations of works like Hamlet (p. 122). |
| Paradise Lost (Revisited) | Institutional Critique | Focuses on how institutional frameworks shape the reception and interpretation of canonical texts. | Raval critiques institutionalized criticism for perpetuating certain interpretations and restricting alternative readings (p. 127). |
| Romantic Poetry (Various Authors) | Historical Critique | Examines the historical context and obsessions of Romantic poets to understand the evolution of literary theory and criticism. | Raval uses Romanticism to illustrate the persistence of foundationalist influences in modern literary practices (p. 133). |
Criticism Against “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
1. Overemphasis on Crisis Without Concrete Solutions
- While Raval highlights the crisis in contemporary literary theory, critics may argue that he does not provide sufficient actionable strategies for resolving the theoretical fragmentation he identifies.
2. Ambiguity in Balancing Historicity and Indeterminacy
- Raval’s advocacy for Gadamer’s historicity of meaning as a middle ground between determinacy and indeterminacy might be seen as vague or insufficiently developed to address the extremes of deconstruction or foundationalism.
3. Limited Engagement with Practical Criticism
- The discussion primarily focuses on theoretical debates and does not directly engage with how these theories can be applied to practical criticism of literary texts.
4. Underestimation of Deconstruction’s Constructive Potential
- Critics might contend that Raval’s treatment of deconstruction focuses too heavily on its negative critique of meaning without fully exploring its contributions to enriching textual interpretation.
5. Institutional Critique Remains Underexplored
- While Raval acknowledges the institutional nature of criticism, his analysis does not delve deeply into how specific institutional dynamics or politics shape literary theory and practice.
6. Neglect of Non-Western Literary Traditions
- The article primarily focuses on Western literary traditions and theories, potentially overlooking how non-Western perspectives might enrich or challenge his arguments.
7. Potential Oversimplification of Reader-Response Theory
- Raval critiques reader-response theories, such as Stanley Fish’s interpretive communities, for their narcissism, but this critique might be viewed as reductive, failing to recognize their broader contributions to understanding interpretive pluralism.
8. Insufficient Address of the Role of Technology in Criticism
- Given the growing influence of digital humanities and technology on literary theory, the article’s lack of engagement with these contemporary trends might be seen as a limitation.
Representative Quotations from “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “There is currently great anxiety among literary critics and theorists about literary criticism’s loss of identity…” | Highlights the existential crisis in literary theory due to challenges from deconstruction and indeterminacy, questioning its coherence as a discipline. |
| “The hermeneutic of suspicion emerges as an interpretative strategy, pitting itself against the hermeneutic of belief.” | Refers to the shift from traditional interpretation grounded in belief to suspicion, a hallmark of modern critical approaches like deconstruction and psychoanalysis. |
| “Structuralism’s original ambition to articulate universal conditions of meaning… had to be abandoned.” | Discusses the evolution of structuralism and its failure to sustain universalist claims, leading to post-structuralist critiques. |
| “Gadamer’s hermeneutic… shows literary meanings as products of a complex cultural transaction within interacting historical horizons.” | Highlights Gadamer’s contribution to historicism in literary theory, emphasizing the dialogic nature of interpretation over static objectivity. |
| “The proliferation of literary interpretations has led Jonathan Culler to separate primarily interpretative activity from a study of literature which would go beyond interpretation.” | Points to the dilemma in criticism about whether interpretation should transcend or remain central to literary studies. |
| “Radical theory takes unreason or negative reasoning as the strategy by which to deprive criticism of its self-confidence.” | Critiques the tendency in radical theories, like deconstruction, to embrace chaos and unreason, contrasting it with traditional rational approaches. |
| “Criticism is an institutional activity… unfortunate, ill-conceived, preposterous, or downright silly in the institution cannot be easily eliminated…” | Examines the institutionalized nature of criticism, suggesting its strengths and flaws are intertwined with academic structures and politics. |
| “The hermeneutic of indeterminacy… results in what Hayden White has aptly called the ‘absurdist moment’ in contemporary criticism.” | Explores the extreme outcomes of radical indeterminacy in literary theory, where meaning becomes completely fragmented. |
| “The crisis of contemporary literary theory consists not in the fact that no single theory has emerged… but in the fact that contemporary literary theory is unable to come to terms with the implications of a loss of an Archimedean position.” | Argues that the true crisis is not the absence of a unifying theory but the inability to navigate the loss of a foundational standpoint in criticism. |
| “We should not ask philosophy to perform a task it cannot perform, nor should we expect cultural or literary theory to perform it either.” | Calls for realistic expectations of theory, suggesting that criticism’s value lies in its provisional, historically contextual insights rather than in seeking ultimate foundations. |
Suggested Readings: “Philosophy And The Crisis Of Contemporary Literary Theory” By Suresh Raval
- Raval, Suresh. “Philosophy and the Crisis of Contemporary Literary Theory.” The Monist 69.1 (1986): 119-132.
- Sanders, Mark. “Introduction: Ethics and Interdisciplinarity in Philosophy and Literary Theory.” Diacritics, vol. 32, no. 3/4, 2002, pp. 3–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566442. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
- Shusterman, Richard. “ANALYTIC AESTHETICS, LITERARY THEORY, AND DECONSTRUCTION.” The Monist, vol. 69, no. 1, 1986, pp. 22–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27902950. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
- Gorman, David. “From Small Beginnings: Literary Theorists Encounter Analytic Philosophy.” Poetics Today, vol. 11, no. 3, 1990, pp. 647–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772830. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.