Theory Debates and Discourse Analysis

Abstract

What direction Theory should take as an institutional domain was a concern even while it was being constructed as such. Both de Man’s and Said’s works were replete with self-reflexive observations on literary pedagogy, the scholar’s profession, the organization and history of humanistic disciplines. Since Theory was conceived as interrogative of institutional humanities at the time, contemplation of its institutionalization was necessarily a political step. This was complicated by the political desire of Theory, or by the transposition of worldly responsibilities (à la Said) on the deconstructionist impetus of Theory. It wasn’t immediately evident, however, in what fashion the alteration of institutional space by Theory would serve its radical political aspirations for worldly intervention. In fact, no consensus was reached in that regard. At best, Theory could be regarded as political self-fashioning for academics, but its reach seemed to be closed within ivory towers. That the political pretensions of Theory were excessive was oft noted: Gerald Graff felt that its effect on the humanities was “mirroring the very society they seek to oppose” (1979, p. 26); Eugene Goodheart saw in it an “inability to deal with the question of values and, in particular, of its own values” (1984, p. 175); William Cain found that “The political debates in contemporary theory are intense, even frenzied, but not very productive or precise” (1984, p. xiv); Howard Felperin was doubtful about “whose politics it serves or advances” (1985, p. 214); Art Berman pondered “the social powerlessness of the literary critic” (1988, p. 312); Ralph Cohen observed that the institutional base of Theorists “delimits both their vocabulary and their contribution to the larger non-academic audience they wish to change” (1989, p. x); Denis Donoghue saw in Theory “the vocabulary and their contribution to the larger non-academic audience they wish to change” (1989, p. x); Denis Donoghue saw in Theory “the confusion of theories with principles and ideologies” (1992, p. 47); and so on.