Despair, Enchantment, Prayer: A Conclusion

Abstract

The book thus far has struggled to mediate theoretically between textual (immanence) and sociohistorical (contextual) theories, approaches, methodologies of Literature. It was successful to a certain degree by altering the conception of what text and context might mean, say, in terms of ‘the author’. It was dogged all the way through by the question ‘What is Literature?’ And despite the critique of postmodernism and the conclusion that ideas of the postmodern are flawed along the lines of ‘history’ (or ‘materialism’), it nevertheless remains the case that the theoretical arguments, if not always the practical consequences (in the world outside of academic discourse), of its antifoundationalism are persuasive. This led to rethinking the direction of the book (and literary theory) and to the switch of Part II, which, after its recognition of the limits of theoretical endeavour in any form in the Arts (within its own delimitations), attempted to find an escape route by way of demanding a philosophy of Literature (Arts). It decided that the evidence was for a philosophy which took as an article of faith a belief in some kind of ‘1-Thou’ formulation. It used Buber for freshness and relevance to the current debate: he is relatively unknown, yet has obvious affinities with all criticism/theory/ philosophy involved with ‘the other’ - Derrida, Bakhtin, de Certeau, Levinas. I believe that the ‘1-Thou/ has much going for it and yet, inevitably, it is still not enough (necessary but not sufficient).