Jonathan CullerPalo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007.
$21.95/Trade Paperback
Jonathan Culler’s The Literary in Theory (Stanford University Press, 2007) doesn’t quite fulfill the promise of its title. Part of the reason for this is that Culler’s book isn’t itself theory, per se, but rather a review of a variety of theoretical fields with a passing nod to each field’s relationship to literature. If you’re looking for a riveting history of the conflict between theory and anti-theory opponents in academic discourse, look elsewhere.
Culler’s response to critics of the movement towards theory in academia is token at best. The critics, Culler says, argue that authorial intention and the hermeneutic reading of texts have been rendered irrelevant by theories which serve only to obfuscate truth while solipistically perpetuating their own existence (and the careers of said theories’ practitioners).
In defense of theory Culler calls in the giants who have done everything possible to undermine the traditional relationship between meaning and text: Ferdinand de Saussure, Jacques Derrida, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Culler’s favorite, Paul de Man. Much of the book, in other words, is a review of major theoretical accomplishments even though these accomplishments have failed to produce any more concrete “answers” to questions posed by literary texts. None of Culler’s insights into this history are particularly new or riveting—though there is no doubt that Culler knows his syllabus. Any academic would be envious of both the depth and precision of his knowledge.
Still, from reading his book it strikes me that Culler is more interested in defending certain structures of academia than anything abstract as theory. After all, despite criticisms there seems little threat to theory’s continued existence and pertinence to academic discourse. Far more engaging is Culler’s final section, “Critical Practices,” in which he critiques theoretical concepts as entire methodologies. Culler lets loose some delightful barbs such as: “The organizers asked me to address the question of what it is for a piece of philosophy to be badly written—no doubt thinking that as a reader of French philosophy I would have special expertise on this question” (Culler 205). Or, of cultural studies, Culler sums up its series of peculiarities thusly: “Cultural studies dwells in the tension between, on the one hand, the analyst’s desire to culture as a hegemonic imposition that alienates people from their interests and creates the desires that they have come to have and, on the other hand, the analyst’s wish to find in popular culture an authentic expression of value” (Culler 244).
These moments of humor and clarity enliven the final chapters of the book whereas the first several feel rudimentary. The Literary in Theory is hardly groundbreaking and, in some respects, has hardly anything to do with “The Literary in Theory.” I purchased the book expecting the history of the conflict between theory and anti-theory opponents and instead got a mostly one-sided view of theoretical achievements. The Literary in Theory shines in individual chapters, but as a collective argument it just doesn’t seem to try very hard.
