Introduction: “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler
“The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in the James Joyce Quarterly (Vol. 18, No. 3, Spring 1981), published by the University of Tulsa. In this essay, Culler examines the challenges and implications of applying literary theory to textual analysis, focusing on Seymour Chatman’s Story and Discourse as a case study. Culler critiques the work of the MURGE group, which undertook a detailed, sentence-by-sentence application of Chatman’s model to James Joyce’s short story “Araby.” While Chatman expressed reservations about this exhaustive approach, particularly its tediousness and potential misrepresentation of his work, Culler highlights the theoretical tensions that emerge when attempting to use abstract models for concrete textual elucidation. He argues that the process exposes the need for precise operational definitions in theory while also revealing the inherent limitations of narrative models in resolving interpretive disagreements. Culler’s essay underscores the dual role of literary theory: as both a descriptive framework for understanding existing literary competence and a prescriptive tool that can reshape interpretive practices. This discussion is pivotal in literary theory as it questions the boundaries of theory’s applicability and its influence on critical methodologies.
Summary of “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler
- The Aim and Context of Culler’s Discussion
Jonathan Culler’s essay, The Application of Theory, published in the James Joyce Quarterly (Vol. 18, No. 3, Spring 1981), evaluates the challenges of applying literary theory to textual analysis. Using Seymour Chatman’s Story and Discourse as a framework, Culler critiques the ambitious effort by the MURGE group to implement Chatman’s model in analyzing James Joyce’s “Araby.” This effort tested the boundaries of theoretical applicability in literary studies, highlighting both the potential insights and inherent limitations of narrative models (Culler 287). - MURGE Group’s Comprehensive Application of Theory
The MURGE group undertook a rigorous, sentence-by-sentence application of Chatman’s model to “Araby,” striving for precision and consistency. They aimed to test the operational viability of Chatman’s framework by systematically identifying plot elements, such as kernels and satellites. Culler notes their belief that “a comprehensive analysis” was essential for fully evaluating the model’s utility, even if it appeared tedious to both write and read (Culler 288). - Chatman’s Objection to Exhaustive Analysis
Seymour Chatman critiqued the MURGE group’s method as excessive and not in line with his intended application of the model. He argued that their detailed approach, with its reliance on diagrams and formulae, risked misrepresenting narrative analysis as overly mechanical or esoteric. Moreover, he claimed that their work “would not prove anything” and that a comprehensive analysis could not illuminate broader interpretive insights (Culler 287-288). - The Need for Operational Precision in Theory
Culler emphasizes the importance of operational definitions in literary theory, especially for collaborative analyses like MURGE’s. Disagreements within the group about identifying narrative elements, such as character traits or kernels, underscored the limitations of Chatman’s model. As James Sosnoski observed, effective models must offer “explicit rules of identification” to ensure their practical usability (Culler 289). - Theory as a Tool for Clarification, Not Resolution
Culler asserts that theoretical models should not be seen as algorithms capable of resolving interpretive disputes. Instead, they should clarify such disagreements by highlighting relevant textual factors. He argues that this inability to resolve conflicts reflects the model’s alignment with the complexities of literary competence. “Models of narrative are not algorithms designed to generate ‘true’ structural descriptions,” he writes, but rather representations of interpretive processes (Culler 290). - Literary Theory’s Dual Role
Culler highlights the dual nature of literary theory: as both a descriptive tool for understanding existing literary competence and a prescriptive framework for reshaping interpretive practices. He observes that theoretical writings oscillate between presenting new concepts as accurate representations of literature and as tools for uncovering novel textual insights. This inherent tension, he concludes, ensures that “the application of theory will always be a problem, never a solution” (Culler 291-292). - Broader Implications for Literary Studies
The essay ends by considering the broader implications of Culler’s analysis. He notes that interpretive models must account for ambiguity and disagreement among readers, as these features are intrinsic to literary texts. Taxonomies or classifications of narrative elements, for example, should reflect the judgments of experienced readers rather than relying solely on linguistic features (Culler 291).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Relevance in the Essay |
| Kernels and Satellites | Terms from Chatman’s model distinguishing between essential plot points (kernels) and supplementary details (satellites). | Used to evaluate narrative structure in “Araby,” revealing challenges in consistently identifying these elements. |
| Style Indirect Libre | A narrative style blending the voice of the narrator with that of a character, often without clear boundaries. | Highlights the difficulty of applying theoretical models to identify this stylistic feature consistently. |
| Descriptive Models | Models that focus on operational definitions and clear criteria for identifying textual elements. | Advocated by Sosnoski and others as necessary for effective application of theory in textual analysis. |
| Taxonomy | A classification system that organizes elements of a text or narrative into distinct categories. | Critiqued as needing motivation from both textual features and literary competence, rather than being purely linguistic. |
| Interpretive Disagreement | Variations in readers’ interpretations of a text due to ambiguities or subjective perspectives. | Demonstrates the limitations of narrative models in resolving such disputes. |
| Literary Competence | A reader’s intuitive understanding of literary conventions and structures. | Theory is seen as a reflection of literary competence, aiming to model how readers interpret texts. |
| Operational Definitions | Explicit and precise rules for identifying textual features or elements. | Highlighted as crucial for collaborative applications of theory, but found lacking in Chatman’s model. |
| Narrative Ambiguity | The inherent uncertainty in determining the meaning or role of narrative elements. | Used to argue that models should reflect and clarify, rather than resolve, such ambiguities. |
| Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Theory | Descriptive theory represents existing reading practices; prescriptive theory suggests new ways of interpreting texts. | Explains the dual role of theory in understanding and reshaping interpretive practices. |
| Algorithmic Model | A step-by-step process for deriving structural descriptions of a text without interpretive input. | Rejected by Culler as unrealistic for literary theory, which involves subjective interpretive acts. |
Contribution of “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Advancement of Structuralist Narrative Theory
- Culler engages with Seymour Chatman’s structuralist framework, critiquing its application and offering insights into the challenges of operationalizing structuralist models.
- He highlights the tension between structuralist emphasis on taxonomies (e.g., kernels vs. satellites) and the interpretive flexibility required in literary analysis (Culler 287-288).
2. Focus on Literary Competence in Theory Application
- Culler extends the concept of literary competence by framing theory as a representation of readers’ intuitive engagement with texts.
- He emphasizes that narrative models should align with how experienced readers interpret structures, rather than imposing artificial categorizations (Culler 290).
3. Critique of Algorithmic Models in Literary Studies
- The essay rejects the feasibility of creating algorithmic, step-by-step models for textual analysis, asserting that literary interpretation inherently involves subjective decisions.
- This critique is significant for moving beyond purely systematic approaches and acknowledging interpretive nuances (Culler 289).
4. Interrelation of Descriptive and Prescriptive Theory
- Culler explores the dual function of literary theory: descriptive (reflecting how literature is read) and prescriptive (altering reading practices).
- This insight connects structuralist theories with broader debates about the role of literary theory in shaping interpretive frameworks (Culler 291-292).
5. Examination of Narrative Ambiguity and Interpretive Disagreement
- By addressing how narrative models fail to resolve ambiguities (e.g., conflicting judgments about kernels and satellites), Culler underscores the role of theory in clarifying rather than resolving interpretive conflicts (Culler 290).
- This aligns with poststructuralist ideas about the instability of meaning and challenges expectations of definitive interpretive frameworks.
6. Theoretical Implications for Genre and Taxonomy
- The essay critiques traditional taxonomies, arguing for their grounding in literary competence rather than linguistic features alone.
- Culler references Northrop Frye’s and Tzvetan Todorov’s debates on generic classifications to illustrate how categories like “tragedy” and “comedy” are more experiential than structural (Culler 291).
7. Reassertion of the Role of Interpretation in Theoretical Models
- Culler posits that theoretical models are tools for deepening interpretive engagement, not definitive mechanisms for textual analysis.
- This contribution bridges structuralist and poststructuralist debates, asserting that theory is dynamic and inseparable from readerly interpretation (Culler 292).
Examples of Critiques Through “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Theory/Model Applied | Critique Through Culler’s Lens | Key Insight |
| “Araby” by James Joyce | Seymour Chatman’s narrative model (Story and Discourse) | The MURGE group’s sentence-by-sentence analysis tested the applicability of kernels and satellites, revealing ambiguities in operational definitions. | Demonstrated the challenge of applying abstract narrative categories to specific textual elements. |
| Robbe-Grillet’s Le Voyeur | Structuralist and Narrative Theories | Readers often disagree on distinguishing between plot events and memories, hallucinations, or repetitions. | Highlighted how narrative ambiguity challenges the descriptive clarity of narrative models (Culler 290). |
| Northrop Frye’s Generic Taxonomies | Frye’s archetypal criticism and genre theory | Critiqued the basis of Frye’s generic classifications (e.g., tragedy and comedy) as being more experiential than systematic. | Reinforced the idea that genres are grounded in literary competence rather than strictly linguistic or textual features. |
| Tzvetan Todorov’s Structuralist Poetics | Structuralist taxonomy of narrative types | Todorov’s critique of Frye’s genre distinctions exemplifies the difficulty of deriving classifications from textual features. | Supported the argument that taxonomies must reflect readers’ interpretive judgments and shared literary conventions. |
Criticism Against “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler
1. Ambiguity in Theory’s Purpose
- Critics argue that Culler does not fully resolve the tension between the descriptive and prescriptive roles of literary theory, leaving readers uncertain about its primary function.
- The essay oscillates between advocating for theoretical frameworks and critiquing their applicability, creating interpretive ambiguity.
2. Limited Practical Guidance for Critics
- While Culler critiques the MURGE group’s exhaustive application of theory, he provides little concrete guidance on how to balance theoretical abstraction with practical analysis.
- His rejection of algorithmic models and comprehensive analyses leaves critics questioning how theory should be effectively employed.
3. Dependence on Reader Competence
- Culler’s emphasis on literary competence as the foundation for theory application has been criticized for its subjective reliance on the interpretive abilities of readers, which vary widely.
- This focus risks undermining the universality of theoretical models by tying them too closely to individual or cultural reading practices.
4. Lack of Focus on Alternative Theoretical Models
- The essay concentrates on critiquing structuralist and narrative models (e.g., Chatman’s framework) but offers limited engagement with other approaches, such as feminist, postcolonial, or psychoanalytic theories.
- This narrow focus has been criticized for not fully addressing the broader applicability of theory across diverse literary traditions and methodologies.
5. Oversimplification of Narrative Ambiguity
- While Culler argues that narrative ambiguity reflects the complexity of literary competence, critics contend that this oversimplifies the role of theory in clarifying or addressing such ambiguities.
- Some theorists argue that ambiguity can and should be systematically explored, even if definitive resolutions are impossible.
6. Resistance to Systematic Models
- Culler’s rejection of algorithmic approaches to narrative analysis has been critiqued for being overly dismissive of attempts to create systematic frameworks, which some see as essential for advancing literary studies.
- His critique of the MURGE group’s methodology may seem to undervalue their efforts to operationalize theory, which could lead to greater precision in analysis.
7. Underexploration of Non-Structuralist Frameworks
- Critics note that the essay remains heavily grounded in structuralist perspectives and does not sufficiently engage with poststructuralist or deconstructive alternatives, despite these being prominent at the time.
- This limits the essay’s contribution to broader theoretical debates beyond structuralism.
Representative Quotations from “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Critics and theorists always hope that readers will approach their work with sympathy and understanding.” | Highlights the idealistic expectation of theorists that their models will be tested thoughtfully and thoroughly. |
| “Seldom does a work benefit from the treatment accorded Story and Discourse.” | Acknowledges the unique effort by the MURGE group to rigorously apply Chatman’s model, despite its limitations. |
| “A comprehensive analysis would be tedious to write and to read, but it cannot in principle be a wrong application of the model.” | Defends the MURGE group’s detailed methodology as a valid test of theoretical applicability. |
| “Models of narrative are not algorithms designed to generate ‘true’ structural descriptions.” | Critiques the expectation that theories can resolve interpretive ambiguities definitively. |
| “The very project of taking a theoretical model and applying it to a short story breeds the desire for an algorithm.” | Points to the tension between theoretical abstraction and the practical demands of literary analysis. |
| “Taxonomies must produce groupings which prove to have a function and thus a reality for experienced readers.” | Emphasizes that classifications in theory should reflect the interpretive experiences of readers. |
| “If critics want an explicit, algorithmic model of narrative structure, they should recognize that this is possible only if we know in advance what must be specified.” | Challenges the feasibility of creating universally applicable models for narrative analysis. |
| “When there is interpretive disagreement among critics, one should not expect models of narrative to resolve that disagreement.” | Asserts that theoretical models are tools for clarification, not definitive resolution of ambiguities. |
| “Literary theory oscillates between two functions: presenting new concepts and discovering new facts about texts.” | Reflects the dual role of theory as both descriptive and prescriptive in shaping literary interpretation. |
| “The application of theory will always be a problem, never a solution.” | Concludes that applying literary theory is inherently complex and cannot yield simple solutions. |
Suggested Readings: “The Application of Theory” by Jonathan Culler
- Culler, Jonathan. “The Application of Theory.” James Joyce Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, 1981, pp. 287–92. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25476373. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.
- XIE, MING. “What Does the Comparative Do for Theory?” PMLA, vol. 128, no. 3, 2013, pp. 675–82. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23489305. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.
- Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.