What's Left of Theory? New Work on the Politics of Literacy Theory

By Bauerlein, Mark | Style, Summer 2001 | Go to article overview

What's Left of Theory? New Work on the Politics of Literacy Theory


Bauerlein, Mark, Style


Judith Butler, John Guillory, and Kendall Thomas, eds. What's Left of Theory? New Work on the Politics of Literary Theory. Essays from the English Institute. New York: Routledge, 2000. xii + 292 pp. $85.00 cloth; $21.00 paper.

The latest English Institute collection is a fitting representation of literary studies at the present time. The title plays coyly on the meanings of "left" and leaves "theory" unspecified, and "literature" unmentioned. The table of contents lists several academic stars talking about predominant, mostly nonliterary subjects-race, politics, gender, theory. The volume has no consistent theme or subject matter. The subtitle, "New Work on the Politics of Literary Theory," suggests a single issue, but of the nine essays only two of them (Brenkman, Culler) address literary theory per se. Four of them avoid literature altogether (Halley, Warner, Berube, Connolly), and one (Spivak) devotes only a few perfunctory paragraphs to specific texts. The two essays that do broach literary works (Levinson, Nunokawa) quickly veer into nonliterary concerns. The authors pursue singular lines of inquiry, casually touching on a host of topics including conspicuous leisure, global capital, The Bell Curve, Original Sin, the anti-- Rushdie fatwa, and a phone call from one of the editors.

What is odd about this diversity is that the contributors seem unaware of the rhetorical problems it poses. They plunge into their readings without worrying about their audience, without bothering to justify their choices. But how, for instance, is an English teacher supposed to understand William Connolly's discussion of the "secular public sphere" when it cites sources from theology and neurophysiology, and invokes Kant, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Rawls, Talal Asad, Habermas, etc.? Michael Warner recounts the recent campaign against New York gay porn shops, Michael Berube describes his Down syndrome son, and Janet Halley details gay rights legal arguments, and none of them pauses over the likelihood that most literature teachers have never entered a gay porn shop, observed a disabled child, or tracked a gay rights court case. The editors ask, "Does literature remain (the same) after theory?" (x), unconcerned that 99% of readers of literature would consider the question irrelevant and even nonsensical. These critics argue and compose as if readers already share their outlook, and are eager to hear what they have to say. They display a kind of self-certification, an untroubled approval of their subjects (as legitimate disciplinary objects), a disregard of rival viewpoints.

Unsurprisingly, the rhetorical practices that go with this critical arrogance conspire against the authority that these critics assume. Their habits of composition, discursive maneuvers, allusiveness, and self-reference effect the opposite of communication. As this collection demonstrates, with a few exceptions, the ethos assumed by the theorists yields a fractious, unwieldy critical style, an idiom of bloated abstract description, an argumentation that is casual and self-involved, that ends up patronizing and estranging colleagues who do not subscribe to the views of the critic.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's "From Haverstock Hill Flat to U.S. Classroom, What's Left of Theory?" is an appropriate lead essay. It opens with a sound acknowledgment of the inconsequentiality of the theory-practice debate outside the academy. But two sentences later the reasoning leaps to a political indictment: "elite universities [... ] protect their conservatism with a viciousness not necessarily imaginable outside that charmed circle, ideologically controlling the constitution of their student body when the formal law of the land will not allow more visible lines of separation" (1). Spivak says nothing more about this "ideological control," and indeed phrases it merely as a point she "should add here." Such a damning judgment would in any other context require supporting evidence and cogent argument. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

What's Left of Theory? New Work on the Politics of Literacy Theory
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.