Introduction: “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch
“Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch first appeared in 2005 in the journal Profession, published by the Modern Language Association. This pivotal essay examines the evolution and perceived decline of literary theory, tracing its trajectory from the mid-20th century’s formalist and structuralist paradigms to the poststructuralist dominance of figures like Derrida and Foucault, and finally to its absorption into the expansive and fragmented field of cultural studies. Leitch explores the multifaceted roles theory has played in academia, from its methodological rigor to its sociopolitical critiques, while addressing critiques of theory’s alleged elitism and commodification. The work is significant for its nuanced analysis of the institutionalization of theory and its implications for the future of humanities scholarship, making it a critical reference point for understanding shifts in literary and cultural discourse over the decades.
Summary of “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch
1. The Proliferation of Literary Theory
- The late 20th century marked a renaissance in literary theory, characterized by diverse schools like formalism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, and critical race theory (Leitch, 2005, p. 122).
- This intellectual explosion transitioned into cultural studies by the 21st century, subsuming poststructuralism under a broader, fragmented spectrum of subfields like media studies, disability studies, and trauma studies.
2. Diverse Interpretations of Theory
- Leitch identifies six distinct meanings of “theory,” ranging from methodological frameworks to sociohistorical constructions (p. 123).
- Theory as “grand theory” focuses on structuralism and poststructuralism, while “vernacular theory” adopts pragmatic tools for critique.
- Critics have targeted theory’s perceived abstraction, idealism, and commodification, highlighting its contentious reception across ideological lines (p. 124).
3. The Decline and Transformation of High Theory
- Announcements of theory’s “end” reflect shifts in intellectual priorities, moving from structuralism’s dominance to the rise of cultural studies (p. 125).
- Despite claims of decline, elements of high theory—like deconstructive strategies and interdisciplinary critique—persist, albeit in adapted forms (p. 125).
4. Theory as Historical and Contextual
- Theory evolves with cultural and academic climates, from Enlightenment-era ideals to postmodern critiques of autonomy and neoliberal influences (p. 126).
- It mirrors broader societal changes, including globalization, disaggregation of disciplines, and market-driven academic structures (p. 127).
5. Institutionalization and Market Forces
- The 1980s and 1990s saw a surge in demand for theorists in academia, but recent decades have shifted focus to practical applications in research and teaching (p. 127).
- Theory’s institutional entrenchment ensures its persistence, even as its influence decentralizes into interdisciplinary domains (p. 127).
6. Theory in a Postmodern Context
- The transformation from “high theory” to “vernacular theory” reflects theory’s responsiveness to socio-political and economic conditions (p. 128).
- The commodification of theory as a niche market is both a symptom of and a response to late-capitalist academic frameworks (p. 128).
7. The Future of Theory
- Questions about the future of theory hinge on its role in education and its integration into interdisciplinary studies (p. 128).
- Even in decline, theory’s adaptability positions it as a ghostly, ever-evolving force in academia, re-emerging in unexpected ways (p. 128).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Explanation | Reference in Article |
| Grand Theory | Refers to high-level theoretical frameworks like structuralism and poststructuralism (e.g., Derrida, Lacan). | Leitch (2005), p. 124. |
| Vernacular Theory | Pragmatic and adaptable tools used for specific critiques, often in applied or interdisciplinary contexts. | Leitch (2005), p. 124. |
| Poststructuralism | A dominant theoretical approach of the late 20th century, emphasizing deconstruction and critique of binaries. | Leitch (2005), p. 123. |
| Cultural Studies | An interdisciplinary field that absorbed and replaced poststructuralism, focusing on diverse subfields like media, trauma, and performance studies. | Leitch (2005), pp. 122–123. |
| Anti-Theory | A critique of theory, opposing its abstraction and perceived elitism, often associated with conservative scholars. | Leitch (2005), p. 123. |
| Interdisciplinary Writing | A mode of discourse that combines literature, philosophy, sociology, and politics, breaking traditional disciplinary boundaries. | Leitch (2005), p. 124. |
| Professional Common Sense | The unspoken theoretical assumptions held by specialists in literary and cultural studies. | Leitch (2005), p. 123. |
| Postmodern Discourse | A cross-disciplinary pastiche associated with postmodernism, critiqued for undermining academic discipline autonomy. | Leitch (2005), p. 124. |
| Deconstruction | A methodology from poststructuralism focusing on the critique of binary concepts and revealing contradictions. | Leitch (2005), p. 125. |
| Institutionalization of Theory | The integration of theory into academic structures, where its methodologies are embedded in research and teaching practices. | Leitch (2005), p. 127. |
| Marketization of Theory | The commodification of theoretical approaches, influenced by academic trends and job market demands. | Leitch (2005), pp. 127–128. |
| End-of-Theory Sentiments | The idea that theory, as a unified field, has reached its conclusion, replaced by fragmented and contextual applications. | Leitch (2005), pp. 125–126. |
Contribution of “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Critique of Poststructuralism
- Leitch examines the decline of poststructuralism’s dominance, arguing that its focus on deconstruction and binary critiques continues to influence theory despite its waning hegemony (Leitch, 2005, p. 125).
- He highlights poststructuralism’s evolution into ethics and politics after controversies like Paul de Man’s anti-Semitic writings (p. 125).
2. Integration of Cultural Studies
- The essay underscores the role of cultural studies in subsuming poststructuralist frameworks, reflecting a shift toward diverse, interdisciplinary subfields like media studies, body studies, and trauma studies (p. 123).
- This integration has reshaped literary theory to encompass broader cultural and sociopolitical concerns.
3. Defense of Interdisciplinary Writing
- Leitch celebrates theory’s role in fusing disciplines, blending literary criticism with philosophy, history, and sociology, thereby expanding the boundaries of theoretical discourse (p. 124).
- This approach critiques the rigid structures of traditional academic disciplines.
4. Analysis of Theory’s Institutionalization
- Leitch highlights how theory has been entrenched in academic structures, influencing hiring, research, and publication practices, thus solidifying its role in shaping scholarly paradigms (p. 127).
- This institutionalization ensures the persistence of theoretical methodologies in academia, even amidst claims of its decline.
5. Expansion of Vernacular Theory
- The essay contributes to the understanding of “vernacular theory,” emphasizing practical, contingent tools for critique, which contrasts with grand or high theory (p. 124).
- Leitch advocates for its adaptability and relevance in applied contexts.
6. Marketization and Commodification of Theory
- By examining the commodification of theory, Leitch sheds light on how academic trends and market forces shape the development and dissemination of theoretical frameworks (p. 128).
- This critique situates literary theory within broader economic and institutional contexts.
7. Historical Contextualization of Theory
- Leitch situates theory within historical and sociopolitical movements, linking its evolution to changes in academic and cultural climates, from the Enlightenment to postmodernism (p. 126).
- This historical approach underscores theory’s responsiveness to its temporal and material conditions.
8. Contributions to Post-Theory Debates
- The essay engages with “post-theory” debates, challenging notions of theory’s “end” by arguing that theory persists in transformed, fragmented, and recontextualized forms (p. 126).
- Leitch asserts that theory adapts to contemporary conditions, such as globalization and neoliberal academic structures.
9. Preservation of Counterhegemonic Agendas
- Leitch emphasizes the role of theory in sustaining critiques of discriminatory practices related to race, gender, and other social structures, even in its fragmented state (p. 125).
- These counterhegemonic goals remain central to the legacy and future of literary theory.
10. Reflection on Theory’s Future in Academia
- The essay raises critical questions about the place of theory in education, its integration into general curricula, and its potential evolution in response to corporatization and interdisciplinary demands (p. 128).
- This discussion ensures that theory’s relevance and adaptability are foregrounded in debates about academic priorities.
Examples of Critiques Through “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch
| Literary Work | Theoretical Lens from “Theory Ends” | Example of Critique |
| “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad | Poststructuralism and Deconstruction | Through deconstruction, the binaries of civilization/savagery in the novel can be critiqued, exposing the instability of colonialist ideologies (Leitch, 2005, p. 125). |
| “Wide Sargasso Sea” by Jean Rhys | Postcolonial Theory and Cultural Studies | This work can be analyzed for its critique of imperialist narratives, focusing on race, identity, and the subaltern experience (Leitch, 2005, p. 123). |
| “Beloved” by Toni Morrison | Critical Race Theory and Trauma Studies | Morrison’s novel can be explored through trauma studies, focusing on the enduring psychological scars of slavery (Leitch, 2005, pp. 122–123). |
| “Mrs. Dalloway” by Virginia Woolf | Feminist Theory and Interdisciplinary Writing | Woolf’s representation of gender and mental health can be critiqued within feminist and psychoanalytic frameworks, emphasizing interdisciplinary insights (Leitch, 2005, p. 124). |
Criticism Against “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch
1. Overemphasis on Institutionalization
- Critics argue that Leitch focuses excessively on the institutionalization of theory, neglecting the grassroots or less formal applications of theory in non-academic spaces.
2. Lack of Specificity in Defining Theory’s “End”
- Leitch’s concept of the “end” of theory is criticized for being too vague and expansive, offering no clear criteria for what constitutes the end or transformation of a theoretical paradigm.
3. Fragmentation Dilutes Coherence
- Some critics suggest that the essay’s emphasis on the fragmentation of theory into subfields like cultural studies undermines its ability to provide a unified critique or vision for the future of theory.
4. Nostalgia for Grand Theory
- Leitch is accused of harboring a nostalgic tone for the era of grand theories, potentially romanticizing their influence and downplaying the value of more localized, practical applications.
5. Limited Engagement with Counter-Theory Movements
- The essay briefly mentions counter-theory movements but fails to deeply engage with their critiques, such as hermeneutics or speech-act theory, leaving these perspectives underexplored.
6. Marketization Argument Oversimplified
- While Leitch critiques the commodification of theory, some suggest his analysis oversimplifies the complexities of academic market forces and their impact on theory’s evolution.
7. Ambiguity in Theory’s Future
- Critics find that Leitch offers limited concrete proposals for the future of theory, leaving questions about its place in academia and its relevance in a corporatized education system unanswered.
8. Overrepresentation of Western Perspectives
- The essay is critiqued for focusing predominantly on North American and European developments in theory, marginalizing contributions from other global perspectives and traditions.
9. Insufficient Attention to Contemporary Critiques of Postmodernism
- Leitch’s discussion of postmodern discourse does not fully address contemporary critiques of postmodernism, such as its alleged depoliticization or overemphasis on relativism.
Representative Quotations from “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Theory in the current framework has at least a half dozen different meanings.” | Highlights the multiplicity of interpretations and applications of theory, showing its adaptability and fragmentation across different schools and fields. |
| “Cultural studies annexes various segments and tasks of theory.” | Reflects how cultural studies absorbed traditional theoretical approaches, signaling a shift from high theory to a more interdisciplinary and pragmatic focus. |
| “The past of theory demonstrates that theory has a future.” | Suggests that while specific schools of theory may decline, theoretical inquiry itself persists and evolves, adapting to new cultural and academic contexts. |
| “Poststructuralism’s turn to ethics and politics occurred after the revelations of Paul de Man’s writings.” | Connects poststructuralism’s later focus on morality and political critique to a pivotal historical controversy, illustrating how external events influence theoretical evolution. |
| “The institutionalization of theory explains why it is sometimes regarded as a new orthodoxy.” | Explains the critique that theory has become entrenched in academia, perceived by some as rigid or overly commodified. |
| “Theory names a historically new, postmodern mode of discourse.” | Highlights theory’s transformation into a cross-disciplinary approach that blends literature, philosophy, sociology, and politics, reflecting postmodernism’s influence. |
| “End-of-theory sentiments arose very early in the contemporary period.” | Indicates that claims of theory’s demise are not new but recurring, tied to shifts in intellectual and cultural priorities over time. |
| “Theory reflects its time and, while criticizing or sometimes ignoring, responds to the forces at play.” | Emphasizes theory’s role as both a critique of and a response to contemporary cultural, social, and academic conditions. |
| “Theory is part of its time.” | A concise reflection on the temporality of theory, suggesting its relevance is tied to specific historical and cultural contexts. |
| “The critique of binary concepts will no doubt live on.” | Suggests that even as dominant theoretical schools like poststructuralism decline, some of their central methodologies and insights, such as deconstruction, will continue to influence academic discourse. |
Suggested Readings: “Theory Ends” by Vincent B. Leitch
- Leitch, Vincent B. “Theory Ends.” Profession, 2005, pp. 122–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595805. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
- HUNTER, JOHN. “The Digital Humanities and ‘Critical Theory’: An Institutional Cautionary Tale.” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, University of Minnesota Press, 2019, pp. 188–94. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvg251hk.19. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
- HUNTER, JOHN. “The Digital Humanities and ‘Critical Theory’: An Institutional Cautionary Tale.” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, University of Minnesota Press, 2019, pp. 188–94. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvg251hk.19. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.
- Lesjak, Carolyn. “The Perils of the Present, Theory, and the University.” Amerikastudien / American Studies, vol. 64, no. 4, 2019, pp. 515–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45409086. Accessed 24 Dec. 2024.