“The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man

“The Resistance To Theory” by Paul de Man first appeared in 1979 in the collection of essays titled Resistance to Theory. Originally commissioned for a broader scholarly volume, the essay was ultimately rejected, a fact that de Man found revealing. Central to the piece is de Man’s exploration of the inherent tension between theory and its practice, arguing that resistance to theory is, paradoxically, a condition of its existence. This provocative stance has had a profound impact on literary and theoretical discourse, prompting critical examination of the relationship between language, meaning, and interpretation. De Man’s insights continue to shape contemporary discussions about the nature of textual analysis and the limits of knowledge.

Summary of “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man

• The Advent of Literary Theory: Literary theory emerges when the study of literary texts moves away from non-linguistic considerations, such as historical or aesthetic value, and focuses instead on “the modalities of production and reception of meaning and value” (De Man). This shift necessitates a new discipline that critically investigates how meaning and value are established.
• Linguistic Terminology in Literary Discourse: The use of linguistic terminology, which prioritizes the function of language over intuition, marks a significant break from traditional literary history and criticism. According to De Man, this terminology considers “reference as a function of language” rather than as an intuition tied to perception or aesthetics.
• Impact of Saussurian Linguistics: Contemporary literary theory is heavily influenced by Saussurian linguistics, which views language as a “system of signs and signification” rather than as a set of fixed meanings. This perspective challenges the traditional separation between literary and non-literary language, “liberating the corpus from the secular weight of textual canonization” (De Man).
• Misunderstandings of Literariness: Literariness is often confused with aesthetic response, but De Man argues that it is instead related to the “autonomous potential of language” to reveal the unreliability of linguistic utterances. This leads to the “voiding, rather than the affirmation, of aesthetic categories” and challenges the conventional role of aesthetics in literary interpretation.
• Literature as Fiction and the Role of Language: De Man emphasizes that literature is fiction not because it denies reality, but because it is uncertain whether language functions according to the principles of the phenomenal world. He states, “It is therefore not a priori certain that literature is a reliable source of information about anything but its own language.”
• Language and Ideology: The confusion between linguistic and natural reality is what De Man identifies as ideology. He argues that the study of linguistics in literature is a powerful tool for unmasking ideological aberrations. Those who resist literary theory, he claims, do so out of fear that their own ideological mystifications will be exposed.
• Resistance to Theory as Resistance to Language: The resistance to theory is fundamentally a resistance to the use of language about language, which in turn is a resistance to the complexity and ambiguity inherent in language itself. De Man highlights that “language contains factors or functions that cannot be reduced to intuition,” making it an unstable and overdetermined concept.
• The Unstable Relationship Between Grammar and Rhetoric: De Man discusses the tension within the classical trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and logic), particularly the “uncertain relationship between grammar and rhetoric.” He argues that tropes, which are central to rhetoric, challenge the stability of grammatical models and lead to an “epistemologically unstable” understanding of language.
• Reading as a Disruptive Process: The act of reading, according to De Man, is not a straightforward decoding of grammatical structures but a process where “grammatical cognition is undone” by rhetorical elements. He suggests that the resistance to theory is, in essence, a resistance to reading itself, as reading reveals the inherent instability and complexity of language.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man

Term	Definition	Significance in the Text
Literariness	The quality that distinguishes literary language from ordinary language.	De Man argues that literariness is not synonymous with aesthetic value but rather involves a foregrounding of the materiality of language, revealing its instability and unreliability.
Mimesis	The imitation of reality in art.	De Man challenges the traditional view of literature as mimetic, arguing that language does not simply reflect reality but constructs it through its own operations.
Rhetoric	The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.	De Man emphasizes the rhetorical dimension of language, arguing that it undermines the stability of grammar and logic, revealing the inherent instability of meaning.
Trope	A figure of speech involving the use of words in other than their literal sense.	Tropes, such as metaphor and metonymy, are central to de Man’s understanding of how language functions, creating meaning through displacement and deferral.
Deconstruction	A method of critical analysis that exposes the contradictions and ambiguities inherent in language.	While not explicitly named, de Man’s analysis of the instability of language and meaning anticipates key deconstructive concepts.
Ideology	A system of ideas and beliefs that shape social, political, and cultural life.	De Man argues that ideology is produced through language and can be exposed through a close analysis of its rhetorical strategies.

Contribution of “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man to Literary Theory/Theories

• Structuralism: De Man’s essay emphasizes the application of linguistic structures to the study of literature, heavily drawing on Saussurian linguistics. Structuralism, which focuses on understanding language as a system of signs, finds support in De Man’s assertion that language should be viewed as “a system of signs and of signification rather than as an established pattern of meanings” (De Man). This perspective aligns with structuralism’s effort to uncover the underlying structures that govern the production of meaning in texts.
• Post-structuralism: “The Resistance to Theory” contributes significantly to post-structuralist thought by challenging the stability of meaning in language. De Man argues that literature reveals the “unreliability of linguistic utterance” and that language’s relationship to the world is not phenomenally but conventionally determined. This skepticism toward fixed meaning and the deconstruction of language’s referential function is central to post-structuralist theory, where meaning is seen as inherently unstable and contingent on the interplay of signifiers.
• Deconstruction: As a key figure in deconstruction, De Man’s work in “The Resistance to Theory” advances the idea that language deconstructs itself, leading to the “undoing of theory” through the disruption of logical and grammatical systems. His exploration of how rhetorical elements in texts destabilize meaning supports the deconstructive view that any text inherently contains contradictions and tensions that undermine its apparent coherence. The essay posits that “reading will be a negative process in which the grammatical cognition is undone,” aligning with deconstruction’s focus on the indeterminacy of textual interpretation.
• Formalism: While De Man’s essay is often seen as opposing traditional formalist approaches, it nevertheless engages with formalism by addressing the materiality of the signifier and the autonomous potential of language. De Man critiques the formalist emphasis on aesthetic categories, arguing instead for the significance of rhetoric and its capacity to reveal the illusory nature of aesthetic effects. His critique of formalism is rooted in the belief that literature “involves the voiding, rather than the affirmation, of aesthetic categories.”
• Reader-Response Theory: De Man’s exploration of the act of reading as a disruptive process contributes to reader-response theory by emphasizing the active role of the reader in creating meaning. He argues that the resistance to theory is fundamentally a resistance to reading, which reveals the complexities and instabilities of language. This perspective aligns with reader-response theory’s focus on the interpretive role of the reader, suggesting that meaning is not inherent in the text but emerges through the reader’s engagement with it.
• Ideology Critique (Marxist Theory): De Man’s essay contributes to ideology critique by highlighting how literary theory can expose ideological mystifications. He argues that the study of literariness “is a powerful and indispensable tool in the unmasking of ideological aberrations.” By challenging the ideological functions of language, De Man aligns with Marxist theory’s goal of revealing the ways in which texts reinforce or challenge dominant ideologies. His assertion that those who resist theory are often afraid of having their “ideological mystifications exposed” directly engages with the Marxist critique of ideology.
• Semiotics: In discussing the application of linguistic models to literature, De Man’s work contributes to semiotics by examining how signs function within literary texts. He supports the semiotic view that language and literature are systems of signs that do not simply reflect reality but construct it. De Man’s emphasis on the non-referential nature of language and the conventional relationship between signifier and signified advances semiotic analysis, particularly in its application to literary texts.
• Hermeneutics: De Man’s critique of hermeneutic approaches, which seek to uncover stable meanings in texts, contributes to the ongoing debate within hermeneutics about the role of interpretation. His argument that “no grammatical decoding, however refined, could claim to reach the determining figural dimensions of a text” challenges hermeneutic attempts to stabilize meaning through interpretation. This critique encourages a rethinking of hermeneutics that acknowledges the indeterminacy and complexity of textual meaning.
• Rhetorical Criticism: De Man’s focus on rhetoric, particularly its role in disrupting grammatical and logical systems, significantly contributes to rhetorical criticism. He argues that the rhetorical dimension of language, which is foregrounded in literature, “undoes the claims of the trivium (and by extension, of language) to be an epistemologically stable construct.” This perspective reinforces rhetorical criticism’s emphasis on the persuasive and destabilizing effects of language, suggesting that rhetoric plays a central role in shaping and challenging meaning in literary texts.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man

Literary Work & Author	Critique Through De Man’s “The Resistance to Theory”
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	Language constructs social norms rather than merely reflecting them. The novel’s use of dialogue and narrative voice might be seen as participating in the rhetorical displacement of meaning, complicating any straightforward interpretation.
“The Fall of Hyperion” by John Keats	Emphasizes the undecidability in the title itself. The phrase “The Fall of Hyperion” resists a clear grammatical or logical interpretation, highlighting the instability of meaning that De Man argues is inherent in all literary texts, reflecting the tension between grammar and rhetoric in Keats’ work.
“Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad	Exposes the ideological underpinnings of colonialism. The novel’s language could be analyzed for its rhetorical functions, revealing how Conrad’s text deconstructs itself, challenging the stability of its own narrative and the ideologies it portrays.
“Ulysses” by James Joyce	Joyce’s radical use of language disrupts traditional narrative forms and meaning. The text resists conventional readings, with its rhetorical complexity undermining any stable interpretation, aligning with De Man’s notion of reading as a negative process.

Criticism Against “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man

Suggested Readings: “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Reading as a Woman: Deconstruction and Feminist Criticism.” On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Cornell University Press, 1982, pp. 43-64.
2. de Man, Paul. Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust. Yale University Press, 1979.
3. de Man, Paul. “The Resistance to Theory.” Yale French Studies, vol. 63, 1982, pp. 3-20.
4. Lentricchia, Frank. After the New Criticism. University of Chicago Press, 1980.
5. Miller, J. Hillis. “The Critic as Host.” Deconstruction and Criticism. The Seabury Press, 1979, pp. 217-253.
6. Norris, Christopher. Paul de Man: Deconstruction and the Critique of Aesthetic Ideology. Routledge, 1988.

Representative Quotations from “The Resistance To Theory” By Paul De Man with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literary theory comes into being when the approach to literary texts is no longer based on non-linguistic, that is to say historical and aesthetic, considerations.”	This quotation highlights the shift in focus that defines literary theory: moving away from traditional approaches grounded in history and aesthetics to an emphasis on language itself. It underscores the autonomy of literary theory as a discipline concerned with the production and reception of meaning.
“The resistance to theory is a resistance to the use of language about language.”	De Man argues that opposition to literary theory often stems from an aversion to the meta-linguistic focus of theory. This resistance is, at its core, a reluctance to engage with the complexities and ambiguities inherent in language itself.
“Literature involves the voiding, rather than the affirmation, of aesthetic categories.”	This statement challenges the traditional association of literature with aesthetic value. De Man suggests that literature, by revealing the instability of language, actually undermines conventional aesthetic categories, making it more about the rhetorical function than about beauty or artistic merit.
“It is therefore not a priori certain that literature is a reliable source of information about anything but its own language.”	De Man posits that literature should not be seen as a straightforward reflection of reality. Instead, it primarily serves to demonstrate the workings of language itself, challenging the assumption that literature reliably communicates external truths.
“Reading will be a negative process in which the grammatical cognition is undone by its rhetorical displacement.”	Here, De Man explains that reading, under the scrutiny of literary theory, involves a process where established grammatical structures are disrupted by rhetorical elements. This idea reflects the deconstructive approach, where meaning is seen as fluid and unstable.
“The most familiar and general of all linguistic models, the classical trivium, is in fact a set of unresolved tensions.”	This quotation points to the inherent contradictions within traditional linguistic frameworks (grammar, rhetoric, logic). De Man uses this to argue that literary theory reveals and engages with these tensions, disrupting the assumed coherence of linguistic and logical systems.