Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T13:32:10.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Profession of Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

David Kaufmann
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent expansion of literary theory and the invocation of politics in this theory contribute and respond to the tensions sustaining literature departments. Though created and nourished by specialization, the profession bases its legitimation on a generalist ideology that opposes or denies the reification on which the profession depends. This justification claims an important political function for literature departments, but theory's structures of self-presentation, as well as the exigencies of a bureaucratized academy, undermine these political ends. In literary theory, a misleading conflation of institutional and national politics is absolutely unavoidable. To maintain the allimportant fiction of the general utility of literary study, one must elide the difference between the politics of the university and those of the republic. Theory is essential to the institutions sustaining literary study and necessarily more and less political than it might claim.

Information

Type
Special Topic: The Politics of Critical Language
Information
PMLA , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , May 1990, pp. 519 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Works Cited

Adorno, T.W.Minima Moralia. Trans. E.F.N. Ephcott. London: Verso, 1978.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. “Literature and Science.” The Portable Matthew Arnold. Ed. Trilling, Lionel. New York: Viking, 1949. 405–23.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia UP, 1986.Google Scholar
Bennett, William. “To Reclaim a Legacy.” Chronicle of Higher Education 28 Nov. 1984: 16–21.Google Scholar
Bledstein, Burton. The Culture of Professionalism. New York: Norton, 1976.Google Scholar
Bová, Paul. “Variations on Authority: Some Deconstructive Transformations of the New Criticism.” The Yale Critics. Ed. Arac, Jonathan, Godzich, Wlad, and Martin, Wallace. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983. 3–19.Google Scholar
Crane, R.S. “Shifting Definitions and Evaluations of the Humanities from the Renaissance to the Present.” The Idea of the Humanities. Vol. 1. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1967. 16–172. 2 vols.Google Scholar
Daiches, David. English Literature. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1964.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. The Resistance to Theory. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1986.Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. “Fredric Jameson: The Politics of Style.” Diacritics 12.3 (1982): 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graff, Gerald. Professing Literature. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987.Google Scholar
Guillory, John. “Canonical and Non-canonical: A Critique of the Current Debate.” ELH 85 (1987): 483–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homans, Margaret. “Feminist Criticism and Theory: The Ghost of Creusa.” Yale Journal of Criticism 1.1 (1987): 153–82.Google Scholar
Iffland, James. “The Political Unconscious of Jameson's The Political Unconscious.” New Orleans Review 11.1 (1984): 20–28.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. Interview. Diacritics 12.3 (1982): 72–91.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Kalberg, Stephen. “Max Weber's Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History.” American Journal of Sociology 85.5 (1980): 1145–79.Google Scholar
Knapp, Stephen, and Michaels, Walter Benn. “Against Theory.” Critical Inquiry 8 (1982): 723–42. Rpt. in Mitchell 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, Stephen, and Michaels, Walter Benn. “A Reply to Our Critics.” Mitchell 95–105.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart. Kritik und Krise. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1959.Google Scholar
Mailloux, Stephen. “Truth or Consequences: On Being against Theory.” Mitchell 65–71.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W.J.T., ed. Against Theory: Literary Studies and the New Pragmatism. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1985.Google Scholar
Moi, Toril. Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London: Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
Norris, Christopher. The Contest of Faculties: Philosophy and Theory after Deconstruction. London: Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
O'Hara, Daniel. “Revisionary Madness: The Project of American Literary Theory at the Present Time.” Mitchell 31–47.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge UP, 1989.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. “Philosophy without Principles.” Mitchell 132–38. Trilling, Lionel. Beyond Culture. New York: Viking, 1965.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. Matthew Arnold. New York: Harcourt, 1954. United States. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1986. Washington: GPO, 1986.Google Scholar
Veysey, LawrenceThe Emergence of the American University. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1965.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. From Max Weber. Ed. Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C. Wright. New York: Oxford UP, 1946.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. Parsons, Talcott. New York: Scribners, 1958.Google Scholar