Customer Reviews

Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Theory's Empire is a very important addition to the doorstop-level anthologies dealing with what-in the humanities and soft social sciences-is broadly termed "theory." Subtitled "an anthology of dissent" its editors seek to challenge the conclusions and highlight the shortcomings of a collection of -isms currently practiced within the academy.

The high water mark of Theory is now in the past but this anthology is still very much welcome since there is still life left in the dying dragon and-as in the conclusion of the first book of the Faerie Queene-the young need to be warned to keep a prudent distance lest they be harmed by the beast or the 'dragonettes, his fruitfull seede' that may still linger in some hidden nest within the dragon's womb.

The contributions include some classic pieces from prior-generation, distinguished commentators such as René Wellek and M. H. Abrams as well as very recent ones, some written for this volume. There is a little shrillness here and there, but by and large these are not so much 'culture war' attacks as they are substantive criticisms of very real issues, such as Derrida's actual knowledge of modern linguistics or the accuracy of his reading of Saussure. Theory is notorious for its politicization of the academy and it is important to have thoughtful commentators such as Alan Sokal, Russell Jacoby, Todd Gitlin, and Noam Chomsky, whose opposition to aspects of Theory cannot be attributed to their political alignments. Ad hominem smears are common weapons in the Theory arsenal and the editors have sought to immunize themselves against such attacks by including the works of individuals whose credentials, prior associations, and personal body of work cannot be attacked as easily as, e.g., a noticeably conservative, non-academic such as Roger Kimball. The price we pay for this is the absence of pieces by such delicious combatants as Camille Paglia, but given the stakes we pay it.

Since this is an anthology of dissent there is more emphasis on the sins and shortcomings of the dying tyrant than on constructive plans for the future, but there are some such plans here and they are interesting and suggestive. For all the talk of popular culture within "cultural studies" it is often so narrow and formulaic in its approach that one is grateful for a piece like Marjorie Perloff's which discusses, among other things, the robust persistence of interest in traditional writers and traditional methods exhibited in actual popular culture on the internet.

Nearly every essay is clear and accessible and some (Crews's, e.g.) rise to the level of masterpieces. It is too early to predict the ultimate importance of this collection, but the blog buzz is intense at this point. I do not think it is an overstatement to suggest that it should be read by every practitioner within the humanities and every interested observer who has followed the decline of the humanities and wondered-in the face of the constant contradictions, enormities, self-defeating absurdities and, above all, the endless, dull predictabilities-of Theory how such a collection of ideas and attitudes could ever achieve prominence in the face of evidence, logic, and above all, common sense. It is very reassuring to hear Chomsky say, in effect, that he is at a similar loss and to point out that Theory has never successfully proposed a workable alternative to what can be termed, in shorthand, rationality and the scientific method.

As one long away from the Academy I have listened through the years with a mixture of dread and amusement at the tales of 'politically correct' professors promoting their agendas at the expense of individual freedom of thought and response. In an outstanding review of this present work Peter Berkowitz maintains that the 'Theory' business in the realm of Literature has worked to undermine two basic Western principles, the first that of the faith in Reason. The second is the individual liberty of the reader to explore and find meaning within the text.
The Theorists with the Derrida, Foucalt, Lacan agendas have worked to 'organize ' the reading of Literature into Programmatic messages which we all are to subscribe to.
This present volume is a collection of writings which dissent from this kind of formulaic program. It contains works by many of the best literary critics which we have known from M.H.Abrams to Wayne Booth whose final essay is a call for a more honest and individual way of doing Literary Criticism.
Peter Berkowitz concludes his outstanding review with the following inspirational words.

"Whether university literature departments can become sources for the inspiration and cultivation of the love of literature is of concern on more than narrow educational grounds. To be sure, most students will have at most only a few courses over four short college years to study the literary treasures of the West and beyond. Their literature professors should not be permitted to rob them of this golden opportunity to read and revel in novels, plays, and poetry by force-feeding them instead indigestible abstractions, formulaic denunciations, and pretentious proclamations. But also, paradoxical as it may sound, literature taught for its own sake serves a vital public interest in a liberal democracy. In our busy and distracted age, this may be even more true. Literature transports students to other times and places. It acquaints them with people and immerses them in circumstances remote from their own lives. It brings to life the variety of ways of being human. And it exhibits the common humanity in the glorious variety. In short, the study of literature for its own sake helps prepare citizens for the challenges of freedom."

It seems to me that this anthology is one which most critics of literature would definitely want to have in their library.

It includes articles from a goodly number of professors still willing to think. Noam Chomsky is a surprising entry.

I'm a Slightly Order Guy (white, straight... totally out of fashion) who was flattened by a couple of feminist profs upon returning to campus last year. Michel who? I read Foucault, Derrida and Rorty to try to make sense of it all. It didn't. A high school friend of mine, a prof who fled to Canada to dodge the draft, and certainly no conservative, informed me that I was encountering a social phenomenon; philosophy had little to do with it, and recommended two excellent books: "Literature Lost" and this.

"Literature Lost" is an easier read, and benefits from the topical organization that a single author can provide. "Theory's Empire" is among other things a celebration of the English language. The authors are so literate! It also provides a wonderful diversity of perspectives with regard to literary theory, political correctness, and the trends and motivations that have driven so many college departments so far from their stated objectives of unbiased research, intellectual curiousity and open debate.

Here's the first page of one of the delicious articles, "The Cant of Identity" by Todd Gitlin:

"THE MORE VOCIFEROUSLY a term is trumpeted in public, the more contestable it is under scrutiny. The automatic recourse to a slogan, as if it were tantamount to a value or an argument, is frequently a measure of the need to suppress a difficulty or a vagueness underneath. Cant is the hardening of the aura around a concept. Cant automates thought, substitutes for deeper assessments, creates the illusion of firmness where there are only intricacies, freezes a fluid reality. Cant is sincere, usually, and its sincerity also protects against scrutiny. Cant comforts. And cant tends to corrupt its opposition into countercant. There is the cant of identity and the cant that rises with righteous and selective indignation against the "political correctness" of the Left, though not against that of the Right.

The cant of identity underlies identity politics, which proposes to deduce a position, a tradition, a deep truth, or a way of life from a fact of birth, physiognomy, national origin, sex, or physical disability. The hardening of one of these categories into cant begins with binary thinking-things are either raw or cooked, male or female, this or that-a propensity that may indeed be, as Levi-Strauss maintained, universal. Anxiety generated by difference may well be embedded in the human condition; so may be the animosity that accompanies anxiety. Perhaps the capacity quickly to classify "the other" as same or different, friend or enemy, once conferred a benefit for survival. But whether or not it was originally a means of natural selection, this sort of binary thinking certainly helps clans, elites, and nations maintain themselves. From binary thinking follows a propensity for identity thinking, which categorizes strangers-this is a person of Type X, not Type Y. The identity thinking of the powerful reassures them that they deserve to rule; the identity thinking of the oppressed affirms that they are not who the rulers think they are. If the identity affirmation of the oppressed begins as a defense against claims of superiority, it can swerve into its own sense of superiority. All forms of identity politics are overly clear about who the insiders are-"normal Americans," "the people,""la Raza,"-and overly dismissive of outsiders. In either case, cant makes for efficient simplifications, but only at the price of rigidity. Cant is what we have when we think we know more than we do. Its opposite is curiosity."

The collection is so rich that many more reviewers will be able to cover it from entirely different perspectives with meaningful posts. I'll close by encouraging you to simply enjoy.

A few years ago, I decided to quit my job in computers and to instead become a professor of literature. I thought that this would be a meaningful and important profession. But after finishing my Masters and being exposed to current fashionable literary theory, I was distressed by the essentially meaninglessnes of how I was being taught to read literature! More distressing, I realized that to succeed in this environment I would have to view the world (not just literature) through this distorted lens of Theory. It would then be my job to teach students to see through that same lens. And not only that, I would be pressured to produce papers that only a few would ever attempt to read, and those few would either agree or disagree based upon their particular distorted Theory eyeglasses. I was and am disenchanted, sickened, and have since returned to a profession that at least pays well even if it is rather tedious. At least now I can enjoy literature.

But thanks to this anthology, I can see that my idealist hopes of a meaningful profession in English Literature were not necessarily foolish. I can see that it is the current Theory and its adherents that are the fools. I felt this to be the case at the time, and now I have some evidence to support that feeling. And best of all, I now have references of critics and theorists that actually make sense and have a balanced view of life, reality, and literature.

My opinion is encapsulated in the title of this review. I questioned everything I was being taught - an English student at York University, it all appeared so monotonous and repetitive to me. The jargon I found reading selected essays from the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism was so pervasive, it seemed to me that its only purpose was to confound; most, if not all the canonised authors, Derrida, Lacan, Althusser, Butler, etc., appeared pretentious and deliberately insoluble in their assertions.

Thank God for this book. It's given me hope for an essay I was dreading coming to terms with; the latest module of my degree, whilst interesting and eye opening, seemed to encourage me to leap on the hamster wheel and base it on the work of contemporary acclaimed theorists, following them to critical literary theory's next predictable destination.

Hopefully this is a step towards dismantling the wheel....

This book should not have been necessary. To take this much effort from scholars who could have been doing more productive things seems a waste -- but, if they didn't take the time out to point out the holes in the many reality-denying Theories of the last generation, who would? The demolition job is complete. It's also a lot of fun, if your idea of fun is watching charlatains get skewered. Enjoy it.

I have taken a course with one of the contributors, Valentine Cunningham. His initial overview of "theory", and its flaws, is very helpful.