Front. Lit. Stud. China 2010, 4(1): 1—1 8DOI 10.1007/Sll7U2-010-0001-6

RESEARCHARTICLE

ZHOU Xian

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract By tracing the development of literary studies in the 20“ century, thisarticle distinguishes “Theory of Literature” (or “Literary Theory”), “Theory” and“Post-theory” by their distinctive attributions in varied historical and culturalcontexts, and then further demonstrates their theoretical paradigms, namely, themodern paradigm of formalism, the post-modern paradigm of French Theory,and the post-theory paradigm after theory. The author argues that the “literarytheory” was formed in the framework of modern humanities, emphasizing thelinguistic and aesthetic aspects of literary studies, and therefore it was actually aproduct of modern disciplinary differentiation and specialization. As for“Theory”, it emerged in the context of human sciences and was beyond theboundaries of the literary studies. With “Politics of Theory” as its core, it gaverise to a “grand theory”. Compared with them, “post-theory” seems even morecomplicated. Through the theoretical development of the two former phases, it ischaracterized by both re exivity and multiplicity.

Q O UKevwarrle hterarv thenrv nnst=thenrv human sci ences mnrlermtv nnst=.-.—.-—J- II --- --—i-w ---'-—--1;.’ -'-.-._--I-.-I‘ --L.’-' -'---—-w-.:§ ---#;-- 5-, - - — ------‘-vi -----—-P —-|--------'.’-3 I.’--L--'7 I’ I

modernity

IntroductionThe 20“ century is regarded as an era of “theory’s empire”, in which wewitnessed the gradual intrusion and conquest by literary theory on various otherintellectual elds. In most cases, literary theory actually played the role ofavant-garde. However, since the 1980s, the calling for “end of theory,” “aftertheory” and “against theory” has become pervasive. During this period, not only

Translated from Wenxue pinglun i%i,¥i% (Literary Review), 2008, (5): 82-87 by ZHENGCongrong

ZHOU Xian (El)School ofLiberal Arts, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, ChinaE-mail: zhouxian@nju.edu.cn

2 ZHOU Xian

theory, but also literature itself seemed to have been condemned to “death”. Byzstuuy1115 LLIU UUVUIUPLLLUHL UL l1LU1(11_y L11UU1_y, L1lUUl_y dllll PUbL'LLlUU1y, Llllb (11 IJUIU

dedicates to revealing the problematic history of theory in the 20“ century.

Literary Theory and HumanitiesStarting from the research on Theory ofLiterature (1949), a masterpiece of RenéWellek and Austin Warren, it can be found that the authors of the book havemade out a careful differentiation of the three categories: “literary theory”,“literary criticism”, and “literary history”. “It seems best to draw attention tothese distinctions by describing ‘literary theory’ as the study of the principles ofliterature, its categories, criteria, and the like, and by differentiating studies ofconcrete Works of art as either ‘literary criticism’ (primarily static in approach) or‘literary history’. The term ‘theory of literature’ might well include—as thisbook does—the necessary ‘theory of literary criticism’ and ‘theory of literaryhistory”’.‘ Under this circumstance, “the theory of literature” is a research onliterary principles and literary criteria and consequently it is different from thestudy on speci c literary works (whereof the static study of literary works refersto literary criticism, while the dynamic or annalistic study is categorized asliterary history). It should be noticed that the “theory of literature” is a higherlevel theoretical study which could encompass the theory of literary criticism andliterary history. Fourteen years later, in the article “Literary Theory, Criticism,and History”, Wellek makes a further analysis of the difference and relationshipbetween literary theory, literary criticism, and literary history. He claims that“literary theory” is a better concept than the old “poetics” as “poetics” oftenrefers to the study of rhymed poems while “literary theory” is more accurate thanthe concept “Literaturwissenschaft” (German, “literary science”) since theconcept “science” is usually con ned to natural sciences‘. In Wellek’s point ofview, literary theory is a fully modem concept because it is more accurate thanits traditional counterparts such as “poetics” which might result in confusion orambiguity as literature is a broader practice which contains other genres likenarrative and drama while poetry is just one category of literature. This is why hereiterated that literary study “must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge aboutliterature, at literary theory”Z. In other words, he contends that a system ofliterary science knowledge can be established by way of the construction ofliterary theory. Wellek insists that there lies a difference between literary studyand historical study because they are handling different research objects. Literary

1 René Wellek & Austin Warren, 1984, p. 39.2 Ibid., p. 553.

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 3

history deals with historical documents, while literary study tackles the“innncrtal works of art”. As he points out in Theory 0fLiter'ar.e"e, literary studyfocuses on the “literary work of art”, and therefore is concerned with the matterof value: “Literary students are con onted with a special problem of value; hisobject, the work of art, is not only value-impregnated, but is itself a structure ofvalues.” 3 On the other hand, Wellek disapproves of the German concept“Literaturwissenschaft” because he believes that the theory of literature belongsto the humanities, not to natural sciences.Notably, it was not until the early l960s that Wellek wrote “Literary theory,

and I-Iistcry”. Even thcugh he had witnessed the decline cf NewCriticism, he still claimed in con dence, “We must retum to the task of buildinga literary theory, a system of principles, a theory of value.”4 The word “retum”implies that there has been some time or even a long time since critics wentastray, which explains why he seems so eager to get back on track. Moreover, inWellek’s appeal, he contends that to form a literary theory is to build a system ofprinciples, that is to say, to build a value system. Note that here he only focusedon “one” value system. Obviously, he still truly believed in a universal, essential“qvqf 'Fnrinr*-inlpq” nr “Q vnlnp qUq‘I'r=~n'\” Fnr Ii'h=r-:|hIrr=~ rnnrip lwv l irnsrn P‘FFf\1"|'QL’-,U‘I\J' \JL lILJ.I_I.\/I.1II.\/Ll , \)L I-rlv \" BIL‘-*l'\J L’) L-‘Ir\JLI..I|. l.\JL I.L\v\IL\vl'\r\vI-1\J .I..L]..\vl'\l\J ll] .l..l.\vl'J-].I.\U]..L \ll..I..\-PL Irl-‘I

However, three years later, when Jacques Denida’s speech at John’s HopkinsUniversity lifted the curtain on Postmodernism, Wellek’s dream encountered anunprecedented threat.Antonie Compagnon’s re ection on “literary theory” gives an alternative

account. In Literature, Theory and Common Sense (1998), he distinguishesbetween“literary theory”and“theory of literature”. Noticing that Wellek andWarren used “theory of literature” instead of “literary theory” in their book,Compagr1.on offers an explanation by claiming that “theory of literature” “isgenerally understood as a branch of general and comparative literature: itdesignates re ection on the conditions of literature, of literary criticism andliterary history; it is the criticism of criticism, or metacriticism.”5 In other words,Wellek’s theory of literature is a theory of general literature, a study of thegeneral issues of literature, or, as Wellek said, a study of the literary principlesand criteria. To Compagnon, “literary theory” has a different meaning; it refersmore to ideological criticism, including the ideological critique of “theory ofliterature”. Anyone can propose a theory since one can always resort to the

QF:0 ET.C? pdQ 2'}

1:E3 :>

ruling theory of one’s own times or regions. Therefore, “literary theory” is a local,fragmentary theory, distinctive from the general “theory of literature”. To bemore speci c, among the contemporary theories on literature, “theory of

3 Ibid., p. 559.4 Ibid., p. 562.5 Antoine Compagnon, 2004, p. ll.

4 ZHOU Xian

literature” is a universal theory affiliated to philosophy and aesthetics, while“literary theory” refers to the modern literary theories particularly based on thetheoretical mode of linguistics. Just as he distinguished “history of literature” and“literary history” by arguing that the former is a comprehensive concept, whilethe latter an analytical one, he also compared “theory of literature” and “literarytheory” in a similar way. In his view, the two notions come from two differenttheoretical heritages: the former “from theory of literature, the re ection ongeneral notions, principles, and criteria”; while the latter “from literary theory,the criticism of literary good sense and the reference to formalism”.6 From this1-\:\i1-1+ n'i-‘tr; 1 if in 0+ 1nu|:i‘I- on-Fa 1-n (iutr 1-‘|'\0+ ‘I-I-1n1-Q r-on Ian ‘I-rnr\ In n n -Fnr_l:J\J‘1l_I.l, LII. V1uVY, 1L IO (Ll, .l.'L/(LDL D(.IJ.\-I LU‘ any I-r.I..l(.Ll, LLl\Jl.\J \J(-l.l..l. lJ'\J l'YY\J' D ‘J 5 J.\J'L

literary theory: of the total and of the local, which deals respectively with thegeneral issues and with speci c issues analyzed by speci c theories, particularlytheory of formalism. This distinction indicates that different literary theoristsstudy diiferent objects, with different levels of abstraction. As Wellek remarked,Aristotle is a theorist, while Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve is but a critic.7Although the profession of literary theory began in ancient times, the

discipline task of literary studies still had to recon rm its legitimacy, since itsfeatures and horderlines seemed to be lo ' .heir self-evidence due to the

2 Iihi('D<2(DF I-+> E?<2F2.E:

E2r:we -I-

increasingly specialized disciplines and growing in uence of natural sciencesand engineering. The humanities provided a “safeguard” for modern literarytheory, securing its seat in the auditorium of higher learning, under whose bannerliterary studies displayed a value orientation and academic traits different fromthose of natural sciences. As shown by Charles Percy Snow’s “two cultures”, theculture of literature and the culture of sciences formed an antagonistic pair.” Justby showing these distinctive attributions, literary study validated itself in themodem production of knowledge and educational system. Yet, interestingly, thepowerful in uence of natural sciences keeps imposing reforms on the paradigmof literary studies. Thus if literary research intended to maintain its distinction, ithad to focus on the particular features of the research objects, methods, andnotions. This is why Wellek opposed the use of “Literaturwissenschaft”. In effect,literary study was made indispensable to the lcnowledge production of thehumanities, and remained the most in uential branch of the humanities.But there is another problem: how is literary theory differentiated from the rest

of humanities‘? Without such a differentiation, the academic and institutional

6 roar, p. 12.7 Compagnon speculated that in Wellek and Warren, “theory of literature” might have beencoined for a particular purpose, however, in the detailed descriptions of Theory 0fLiterature,in spite of the title, “literary theory” can often be found in the places where “theory ofliterature” should have been used, which indicates that, to Wellek and Warren, the two termsmight not seem that different from each other.8 Charles Percy Snow, 1998.

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 5

validity of literary theory would remain in doubt. The “dominant” tendency(Roman O. Jakobson) in the development of literary theory before the 1960semphasized the speci c aspects of literary texts, such theory increasinglyreplaced the older literary theory characterized by totaliw and a contiguity withphilosophy and aesthetics. Paul de Man’s remark is a typical case in point. Hestates that only when research methods are no longer based on non-linguisticfactors such as the historical or the aesthetic can “literary theory” appear. Heeven claims: “Contemporary literary theory comes into its own in such events asthe application of Saussurian linguistics to the literary text.”9 Only literaryracinarr-I1 1\0cinr‘ nn 1i1'\rn1i(i'|-ir-(i r-on kn r-an-01'-riarl an -r-nu] rnnzlnrn I-;‘l-Q1-crrwr ‘I-Inarxrxr1\.1D\.¢(.l..L\.d.1 lJ(.l.Dlu\~l U11 l.J.l.l.5l»l-l.DLl.\.n) \.-10.1.1 UL: 1\/5(.l..l.\-l\J\-l (LO l.\..-(1.1. l.J.1\J\-l\-/1.11 11l.\.¢.l(.l.l_‘y l.l_l\./\J1)'.

Contemporary literary theory tends to be exclusively about literature, not anyother issue; therefore it seeks to preserve the “purity” of literature, especiallyrepresented by the so-called “literariness”, i.e., some linguistic properties ofliterature. The endeavor is bound to banish all the nonliterary elements, or, morespeci cally, all the nonlinguistic theories and methods, from the study ofliterature. To various extents, this pure theoretical orientation can be seen fromthe Russian Formalism to the Prague School, from New Criticism toQf irhirnliqnq T11 'i'|1iq \II‘3l\7 Iifarn r ‘I'I'n=\nr'U mninfninq ifs: riiqfinr trn nrnnpn-I'iQq 'Frnr'nF-llrl. \v}\JIv\vl-ulI»lvl.1.Ll.I-.l.LI Ll.‘ I-vl.l..lL-7 ‘Y l..l.\r\/J» UWLJ IrI.I.\I\I]-.-y L.I|.l.‘Il'.l.l.LIr\vlv.Ll..I..L,' LU}-7 \I-LLlIvl.l.1.\l'\rI. I‘ \-I Ill \)1I\l'L Ir1.\l|'LJ' LL \JL1.l.

those of other humanist disciplines such as philosophy, history and art, withoutlosing its humanistic aspects. And it is just in this way that literary theory remainsan independent discipline in the system ofmodem universities, growing ever morespecialized. From this point of view, in spite of their de ciencies or limitations,both New Criticism and Russian Formalism have made enormous contributions tothe establishment ofmodern literary theory as a discipline or a career.

Theory and Human ScienceAccording to Terry Eagleton, the development of Westem literary theory ismarked by two important periods in the 20”’ century. The rst one is 1917, theyear Russian Formalism treaded the stage,‘0 the other is the period from late1960s to early 1970s, when French Theory began to advance the frontier ofliterary studies, together with the prevalence of Post-structuralism andpostmodern paradigm.“ In his eyes, with the emergence of new social powers

” Paul de Man, 1986, pp. 7-s.1° Terry Eagleton, 1996, p. 11.11 In terms of post-structuralism and its relation to postmodernism, I tend to agree withLawrence Cahoone that the basis for postmodernism is just post-structuralism ordeconstructionism: “When philosophers use the word ‘postmodernism’ they usually mean torefer to a movement that developed in France in the 1960s, which could more precisely becalled ‘post-structuralism,’ along with subsequent and related developments.” LawrenceCahoone, 1996, p. 2.

6 ZHOU Xian

and accelerated global struggle, a growing legion of faculties and students wereswarming into the academic institutions, making campus a battle eld ofpoliticalcon icts. “The rst path-breaking works of Jacques Derrida appeared just asFrench students were gearing themselves up for a confrontation with state power.It was no longer possible to take for granted what literature was, how to read it orwhat social functions it might serve; and neither was it quite so easy to take forgranted the liberal disinterestedness of academia itself, in an era when, not leastin the Vietnam adventure, the Westem universities seemed increasingly lockedinto structures of social power, ideological control and military violence”.12 ThisAncir-1-infinn Aiciniatrci 1-110+ i-Inn (inr-iui 01111 r-1111-111-0] r-n1-\+nv+ 0+ ‘I-110+ ‘I-irna ttr ti in -PLl\JD\Jl..l.1JLl.\Jl.l ‘LI-.lDlJ.l.ClJD Ll_l(.lL I.-1l.\J D\J\/1(.I».l. (.l..l1LI- \-ILl.l.I,LI..I.(.l,l. L/\Jl.ll.\.u\l, (Ll, I-.I.l(.ll, L.l.l.l.l.\J YYCLD Ll]. 1.

longer the same as that for Russian Formalism. Perhaps it was because RussianFormalism had overthrown the traditional paradigm of literary theory from itsinside and constructed the modem literary theory in Paul de Man’s sense. Sincethe later 1960s, as Eagleton discovered, this theoretical paradigm hadencountered severe challenges caused more by the pressure om the variousexternal social struggles rather than by the internal transformation of literarytheory, especially When people of various backgrounds rushed into the existentnr‘--:|riP1'r\ir~ exrqfprn :1 ri F9" infn |'\i‘l"I'Pr r‘-n 'F|ir'-to Ac 5| quit 1-119 qnni-Al nniifirrsulLlv\/\-l¢\L\J'J|.l|.l.I.\-I LJJ Ll lv\l1.Ll. l»lvI\I.\rl» L\-ILL Ll.l.\r\I \I].IaIv\/.l. \./\II1l.l.J..\J lwLIu J. LL! lvlv \-/L, I-vlI.\v, \rl..I..\l Ll\I\JJ..\-ll.’ tI\Il..J..lv.I..\-/lvl-.I..

struggles changed the original forms of literary theory from outside. This changecan be viewed from several respects: the transformation from modern literarytheory to postmodern theory; the tum from the linguistic-based literarytheoretical mode to a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary theoretic exploration;or the shift from pure literary theory to the theoretical pursuit of politics, etc.Eagleton has made two remarkable points about the transition from literary

theory to theory. Firstly, “What was perhaps most in question was the assumptionthat literature embodies universal value, and closely linked tochanges in the social composition of the universities themselves.’”3 Secondly,“The 1970s, or at least the rst half of them (it), was a decade of social hope,political militancy and high theory. This conjuncture was not accidental: theoryof a grand kind tends to break out when routine social or intellectual practiceshave come unstuck, rim into trouble, and urgently need to rethinkthemselves. . .The emergence of theory is the moment when a practice begins tocurve upon itself, so as to scrutinize its own conditions of possibility”.14 Thefrst point is a concise elucidation of the social and cultural context whereinliterary theory is being replaced by theory, which is a decline of universal value;the second reveals that it is just this context that formed intrinsic connectionsamong social hope, political struggle, and the theoretical evolution, and in

F? F‘!- E5

I-17D

12 Teny Eagleton, 1996, p. 191.1-’: Ibid., p. 191.14 Ibid., p. 190.

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 7

particular, gave birth to the “grand theory” highlighted by Eagleton. The “grandtheory” obviously diverges from either Paul de Man’s linguistic-centered modernliterary theory, or the literary theory in Wellek’s sense. It is a totally fresh,interdisciplinary and integrated theory. In fact, since later 1960s many importantschools of theories have transcended the boundaries of literary theory, presentingthe characteristics of “grand theory” in various degrees, with “French Theory” atypical representative. As Eagleton emphasizes in the postscript of LiteraryTheory: An Introduction:

None 01-‘the meths c n-1"O"|'|1'\el1 “nae Qrtr +1. 1'\7 is ..e,...1; fins ahiritr 4-‘1" Ql"\ l'\ (\\-ID 5 lull] \-I |~lLl\-l LL11-Y l-l.L\J\J‘L.y 1] \/L11]. LJ l.-l.L\/ Dbl-¢l\-1-7 \J'L

literature; indeed most of them germinated in elds quite beyond it. Yet thisdisciplinary indeterminacy also marks a breakdown in the traditional divisionof intellectual labor, which the word “theory” somehow ags. “Theory”indicates that our classical ways of carving up knowledge are now, for hardhistorical reasons, in deep trouble. But it is as much a revealing symptom ofthis breakdown as a positive recon guration of the eld. The emergence oftheory suggests that, for good historical reasons, What had become known asthe l111n1srni'i-inc nnnlri nn lnncrnr nsrrrxr nn in tlaair (‘.1IQ1'f\1’Y1SI1'\I qhnne Thiq UUSIQ all

to the good, since the humanities had too often proclaimed a spuriousdisinterestedness, preached “universal” values which were all too sociallyspeci c, repressed the material basis of those values, absurdly overrated theimportance of “culture” and fostered a jealously elitist conception of it. It was forthe bad, since the humanities had also kept warm some decent, generous valuesbrusquely disregarded by everyday society; fostered-in however idealist a guise-asearching critique of our current way of life; and in nurturing a spiritual elitismhad at least seen through the phony egalitarianism ofthe marketplace.‘5

P"t ‘,2:EB‘ OE1 0+

This statement clari es why literary theory could be substituted by theory.Firstly, the traditional way of classifying knowledge had lost its validity; however,literary theory was nothing but a product of the outdated classi cation. Theelimination of “the literary” signi es that a new way of subject integration hasemerged without much notice. Secondly, a disciplinary categorizationcharacterized by indeterminacy has replaced the static way of categorization inthe past, forecasting the crisis of the humanities, of which literary theory was abranch. The methods and approaches of ancient humanities were no longer valid.Thirdly, the crisis of the humanities was actually the collapse of universal value,the decline of an elitist culture or a false promise of egalitarianism. In otherwords, the traditional humanities were established on the basis of universal value.Vi/hen universal value encountered crisis, the humanities would be certain to get

15 Ibid., p. 207.

8 ZHOU Xian

into the same situation.If the dilemma of literary theory reflected the crisis of the humanities, and the

knowledge in pursuit of universal value and speci city had met with greatdifficulty, what new frontiers could theory open up‘? “French Theory’s”transcendence over the humanities (and the classic I-Iumanism) seemed to be ananswer to it. In 1966, Denide delivered a milestone’s speech at Hopkins titled“Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”, in which heused “human sciences” (French: sciences humaines) instead of “humanities”, athought-provoking change of concept. In China, however, the two terms are

I11: +rI3f\(i10+Qf1 infn ‘I-‘Inn 1:1‘ 1'1 “DC! ,5 (1'\1"|1"Y1lly L1 (L.l.1Dl.(.Ll,\J\~I- .LI.1L\J' l:.|.l.\-4' D Ll .l.\\J \LlLI-.l..l.1

ignoring their differences.In the genesis of academic disciplines, humanities belong to the age-old

knowledge system originated from ancient Greece, with rhetoric, language andliterature as its earliest research subjects. During the Renaissance, humanitiesreferred to the study of grammar, rhetoric, history, ethics and ancient Greek andLatin works. Philosophers in Enlightemnent period claimed this category ofknowledge had become ossi ed, without knowing that, in the 19“ century,

ities could find its way back as a specialized doma ' "don tonatural science. Today the humanities cover all the subjects other than naturalscience and social science in higher educational system, such as linguistics,literature, history, philosophy, art, and so on. The focus of humanities is the studyof human nature or the value of human beings. 16 However, due to theinstitutionalization and disciplinary classi cation, humanities are becomingincreasingly confined to some specialized and technological knowledge systems.As Eagleton mentioned, the constraints of the elitist culture of humanities, and its

on universal value in particular, had made it impossible for literary pursuitto continue on the old track. It is the dilemma that the humanities in highereducation and knowledge system are facing today.It is said that the discipline of “human sciences” can be traced back to Wilhelm

Dilthey’s Introduction to the Human Sciences (1883). According to Dilthey,“Geisteswissenscbaften” (German, means “human sciences”) is a disciplineopposite to natural sciences). 17 Dilthey further speci ed the property of thediscipline that the science of human beings, the science of history, and thescience of society formed a eld constituted by various spiritual facts. Its

c:Q2pa F5'50 15E3 =21:5|:,.:‘FFQ5c5 paE5.Ell‘.cu OE‘.‘:'-/

c-.\iiI-ii- 9+EL '~<:

E?=5Es:3 E5 E3 <2'13"55<5U3hi5

16 See Encyclopedia Britannica (International Chinese Edition), volume.8, EncyclopediaofChina Publishing House, 1998, p. 233.17 Some scholars noticed that the concept “Geisteswissenscbaften” rst occurred when JohnStuart Mill’s System ofLogic (1843) was translated into German, which then was translatedinto “human sciences”. Mill considered it impossible to use human thought, emotion andbehavior to prove any unchangeable principles. See Daphen Patai & Will H. Corral, 2005, pp.230-31.

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 9

approach is totally distinctive 'om that of natural science featured by positivism.T4- ,~.'lq,. AI-III-"A...-.~_ I-'1-,~.a-i-_ 4-L,‘ ,1.-..J,....4-J1-‘I.\ 1-_-.,..4-L,-.,1 _nA.\¢-.4-.-4,1 I... 4-Inrs .-,4-“A41 1.-I-‘+4-,-.,1J4-Z.-...._.».'l r1_r\I\-:g'\l1|. dlbU UILLUID IJULQ L115 bb1U11L1l.1L» LLLULLIUU GUUPLUU Lll L115 bl.-ULl_y UL l.l.(1Ll1llUl1(1l DUL/1611

sciences, sociology, ethics, history or culture because the range involved in thesedisciplines is often limited. The merit of “Geisteswissenscbaften” (or “humansciences”) is that the concept can appropriately characterize the “central sphereof facts”.’8 In the 1960s, it was further enriched by the permeating “FrenchTheory”. Michel Foucault elucidates the concept in his Les Mots et les choses: anarcheologie des sciences humaines (The Order of Things: An Archaeology of theHuman Science). 19 In his view, “human sciences” should study the

i ‘ i. i ‘ - i 11 I i i ll i -.l.ti§I-T2?I23 CD iiI27‘5:I27‘ 3E5Q9 on E3‘I-2 ii‘OH <3it012ED

3MCD01-17

1-A1-\1-ac F (1:-rhc ‘Fl\1"I"\"‘l( + Q rrn kocnrcprcsc 1. o15.|.|.o, 1.\.u.111o LLLU go 1 uaou _yknowledge, which, in tum, can only be possible on the basis of representation.This is in line with his discourse analysis in Archaeology ofKnowledge, becauseboth representation and discourse are ultimately the problem of “episteme” (or“épisteme”), an essential concept of Foucault’s theory. In addition, the Frenchscholar also listed out some major features of “human sciences”, for example,drawing upon other disciplines, being marked by uncertainty and ambiguity, andbeing highly self-re exive and self-critical, etc. 21 Therefore, with certainint nlinnrw 'FF!$l‘|'I"l'l"FlQ “l'n11'nnn Q(“iFl‘l“lf".F‘lQ,“ lien Pnripri flwp limifq n'F 1-119

Ll. I-rltl. J .I..\J\~lv\r‘-vlulr. \Jl-J , 1.l.\-ll.I.LLlr1.L L)\I]..\JLL\J\J Lllvlv Y \Il.L\J-\J\¢I- \v.I...I.\l .I..Ll.L.l.l. IIIJ \I.I.. \r.I...I..\lxuv 1-I .1 U‘humanities because what the discipline cares about is not any speci c discipline,but the representations and discourses on which a knowledge is built and theepisteme behind them, added by a shrewd revelation of the coexistence of powerand knowledge. Note that Foucault here endowed “human sciences” with ameaning more extensive and complicated, far different from the notion of“humanities” that had been increasingly institutionalized and academic. 22 It is

$3(2..hin C11 (1 pd0 cit ii{I3CIJO

18 Wilhelm Dilthey, 2002, p.18. See also the English version from the website =<http://wwwmarxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/dilthey1.htm> 2007.83.19 This concept can also be found in Paul Ricoeur, 1981.20 Michel Foucault, 2001, p. 474. The French term that Foucault used in the book is “scienceshumaines”, translated as “htunan sciences” in English. The concept is obviously not in strictequivalence to “humanities”, however, “human sciences” is often translated into “htunanities”in Chinese. So in the Chinese version of Foucault’s works, “humanities” is used in the place of“sciences humaines”. The same is true in the Chinese version of Paul Ricoe1u"s Hermeneuticsand the Human Sciences, which, by translation, is literally renamed Hermeneutics and theHumanities. To avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, the term has been changed back to“human sciences” in all the quotations of this article.Z‘ Ibid., p. 454, p. 467, p. 475.22 Some scholars noted that, compared with humanities, human sciences explore a much largerterritory including social sciences and humanities. See Daphen Patai & Will H. Corral, 2005,p.231; see also Jens Hoyrup, 2000. Others held that “human sciences” has two layers ofmeanings. In a broader sense, it refers to the various knowledge corpuses trying to nd outwhat it means to be a human being; in a narrower sense, it refers to a series of speci cdisciplines, e.g., anthropology, history, psychology, sociology and linguistics, etc.. See RogerSmith, 1997; see also David Macey, 2000.

l0 ZHOU Xian

just through these differences that the transformation om literary theory totheory became visible.First of all, after the transformation from literary theory to theory, the

knowledge paradigm broke off the chains of linguistic model that had dominatedliterary studies since Russian Formalism; instead, it pushed beyond theboundaries of literary theory, borrowing from many other disciplines and evenfrom some new theories hard to be sorted out. According to Fredric Jameson,since late 1960s, “French Theory” represented by Roland Barthes, Jacques LacanLouis Althusser, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard has foundits access into the realm of lit ry study through philosophy, social theory,history, political theory, and so on, profoundly altering the preceding literarystudies. He noticed that the distinctive discourse techniques employed by theformer generation in varied specialized elds (e.g. philosophy different fromsociology) had given way to a monotonous discourse analysis covering all thesubjects formerly independent from each other, where the core of “Theory” lies.The same as Foucault’s analysis of the coexistence of power/knowledge shownby the characteristics of discourse and representation, the discourse of theory cansalon npnpfratp infn nirnnef all Irinrlq n'F ("IIl1"l‘l1' 1 QQ1"\Pf‘.‘|'Q' 'Fr'nn1 ‘H10 Piinir" tn\uIvl.L,\.l' ll \II.I.\J Ir]. bl lv\l LI-LW Ivl'I..I..J-].\I Ll \! l-I']..l. l.\.l.LI.\rlL, \-I J. \/ I-Jr]. Ir‘-‘FL LIL lull-,1] \J'\-I UL’ I IHL \J'.I..I..L lv]..L\I \/I.]..L]..L\|l lv\-P

£5Ea

university, from the historical inquiry to cultural studies. Only through this couldtheory possibly colonize other research areas. Likewise, Eagleton also contendsthat “to be inside and outside a position at the same time—to occupy a territorywhile loitering skeptically on the boundary—is often where the most intenselycreative ideas stem from”23, or, to put it in another way, the best place fortheoretical creation is usually on the “fusion of horizons” generated by variousimpact, with penetration and fusion among different domains, cultures ormowledgeIn fact, “French Theory” is not alone; there are also “British Theory”

(represented by British cultural study) and “Gennan Theory” (represented by thecritical theory of Frankfurt School). The strike brought by the combination of thethree trends greatly changed the structure of late modem literary studies, furtherpromoting the great transition from literary theory to theory. Jonathan Cullerdepicted the transfonnation as follows: “This simple explanation is anunsatisfactory de nition, but it does seem to capture what has happened since the1960s: writings form outside the eld of literary studies have been taken up bypeople in literary studies because their analyses of language, or mind, or history,or culture, o er new and persuasive accounts of textual and cultural matters.Theory in this sense is not a set of methods for literary study but an unboundedgroup of writings about everything under the sun, from the most technicalproblems of academic philosophy to the changing ways in which people have

23 Terry Eagleton, 2003, p. 40.

9

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 11

talked about and thought about the body. The genre of ‘theory’ includes works ofanthropology, art, history, studies, gender studies, linguistics, philosophy,political theory, psychoanalysis, science studies, social and intellectual history,and sociology”.24 Or, as he discovered in another research, “the nature ofliterature or of the literary has not been the focus of theory, and what we called‘theory’ for short is manifestly not theory of literature”.25 In other words, withthe language of literature losing its unique property, the theorists have shiftedtheir attention from concepts conceming literary language, such as metaphor,rhythm, irony, to the analysis of social discourse that is non-literary. 26 Héléner_livn11 on r-Iainanrl ‘I-110+ “(i-=1-\r-Q ‘I-1-an ‘i o I-11:0 Iwnci l\n1nrr\r|-cur] ‘I-r\ +1101 Invir-n11 n-P +1-an\./lJ\.\J'l»l L111 \JI.(-|J.111\J\v|- I/11(.l.L Dl.I..l\/\I l,.l_l\-I L/UUD L11l.D LIIJD lJ\Jl.\J.l..l.5\-l\¢l I/\J l-r.I.1\J LUALUULI LII. L.l.l.\Jon (D <1

intra-academic ideological war.”27 As a defender of literary theory, Wellek wrotean article titled “Destroying Literary Studies” (1983) 34 years after Theory ofLiterature, lamenting on the instant collapse of the mansion of literary studiesbuilt by generations of theorists. He attributed the collapse to the surge of “NewTheory”, which on one hand simply abolished literature of whatever aestheticfeatures it possesses, on the other abandoned the authority of text and the “veryideal of correct interpretation”. More importantly, the evaluation of literaryGTTIIITIPQ \lJ'£3IQ QIQl"\ 1111+ QQIAP HQ ]I='H'["\\TF\1’ (Ti: AC! 5| f".(‘lI"lQF\.('II'IFi'l"ll"'F\ ‘i'l"l QT]1-Yul-l\-l.|.v'L:I Vvwu “Luv 11!.-lo \-Ii-JJ..\-l\.l nu u..L\/ J..\lJ.Iw\lY\-I]. um \.¢L.|.vn.u.L.|.- 1.11.: no \J\J.L.l.LJ\J\1\-l\lI..L\/\I, .L.I..l. 1.01.1.

atmosphere of post-structuralism, extreme skepticism and nihilism, even thehuman being himself is also receding from the sight. 28 Wellek’s anxiety clearlyre ected the tension and con ict between the paradigms of literary theory andtheory.

Secondly, although the transformation from literary theory to theory discardedthe research methods of formalism and linguistics, in a way it also strengthenedthe importance of the context of the “linguistic tum”. As Jameson pointed out,the in uence om structuralism that the linguistic mode introduced by RomanO. Jakobson and Ferdinand de Saussure has been widely applied to the study ofsociety (anthropology), psychology (psycho-analysis), history (Marxist tradition),and various other domains, and nally opens a more comprehensive researchperspective. In other words, the linguistic mode gave birth to a more integratedand inclusive perspective of grand theory within the frame of human sciences,realizing the tum from language to discourse (the discursive tum). In Stuart

ff Jonathan Culler, 1997, pp. 3-4" Jonathan Culler, 2000, p. 276.26 Michael P. Clark, 2000, p. 3.27 Martin McQuil1an, Grame MacDonald, Robin Purves, and Stephen Thomas, 1999, p. 211.28 René Wellek, 2005, pp. 41-51, in which Wellek grieved over “the abolition of aesthetics, theblurring of the distinction between poetry and critical prose, the rejection of the very ideal ofcorrect interpretation in favor of misreading, the denial to all literature of any reference toreality are all symptoms of a profound malaise”, and said “if literature has nothing to say aboutour minds and the cosmos, about love and death, about humanity in other times and othercountries, literature loses its meaning”.

12 ZHOU Xian

Hall’s words, the focus was shifted now from abstract linguistic analysis tovarious concrete signifying practices, bridging the old gap between “what onesays (language)” and “what one does (practice)”, each practice being aproduction of discourse and its meaning.”Thirdl the transformation from liter theo to theo is also a chan e from7

pure academic research to the “academic politics”. Now everything is politics;literary practice is politics, so is literary study. A little more attention to the hotissues in contemporary literary studies would reveal that the key words in thestudies are o en related to politics, such as “class”, “ethnics”, “nationality”,

,, . . . , . ,“fIQ11AQf,, “1-\rn11a1~/1rn1\1xrlnr1 “l\arrcn*nr\1*nr” “1r1a1-rl-11-:1” ““A1-H-‘nrnnr-Q, “1rlar\1.r\rrt1,s\.¢11\-LU}. , _|:JUYV\.¢1{1\.l1UYV LU 11\.:E\./111\Jl.1_y , l.\.l\.1Lll.l.l.J , \.l.ll.l.\.d. \.d.l.L¢\.1 , LUUULUEJ ,(IQ(DLl

“post-colonialism”, and so on. To a certain extent, even the theoretical impulsebecomes a kind of social or political interference. Judith P. Butler points out,“Theory has become impure as it engages the social and political world throughthe reading of literature”.30 In this trend, scienti c notions of objectivism,positivism, and neutralism have all been devastated. Ideology, cultural hegemony,group interest and value position have become the decision-makers of thedirection and destination of the theoretical research even from the very1‘\F‘!O"i1’\'l"l -LJ\Jbl.J..Ll.l.

A basic assumption in theory is “de-”. To make it simple, many assumptionstaken for granted by literary theory have tumed skeptical under the scrutiny oftheory. A typical example is the study of Derrida and Foucault. By criticizing thestandpoint of western metaphysics, Derrida has revealed how one party relies onthe other which is repelled by itself in a series of seemingly natural binaryoppositions (such as self vs. non-self, true vs. false, meaningful vs. meaningless,sane vs. insane, center vs. margins, outside vs. inside, male vs. female, etc.), andfinally discloses the impossibilities of logocentrism and essentialism. Meanwhile,Foucault has explained how the discourse is converted into truth and knowledgeby analyzing the discourse and its episteme, and nally creates a complicity ofpower and knowledge. Eagleton also regards Derrida’s deconstruction as apolitical practice in the attempt to demolish a particular system of ideas and theunderlying logic that ensures power to the system with various political andsocial structures. 31 Butler believes that this theory can “augment itscontamination and enhance its political sa1ience.”32It seems that theory has completely changed the directions and functions of

E5on

29 Stuart Hall, 1997, p. 44. Hall held that “All practices have a discursive aspect. It is importantto note that the concept of discourse in this usage is not purely a linguistic concept. It is aboutlanguage and practice. It attempts to overcome the traditional distinction between what onesays (language) and what one does (practice)”.3° Judith P. Butler, John Guillory, and Kendall Thomas, 2000, p. l0.31 Terry Eagleton, 1996, p. 128.32 Judith P. Butler, John Guillory, and Kendall Thomas, 2000, p. 9.

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 13

literary theory. It is more like a radical skeptic, doubting all the theories andassumptions that people have ever taken for granted, which to some extent is justthe characteristic of postmodern theory. If literary theory in humanities believesin the human nature and universal value, theory in human sciences fundamentallyuproots these beliefs, regarding them as merely the products of language forsocial construction; if literary theory emphasizes the transcendental value ofaesthetics and art, theory has completely exposed that the so-called aesthetic andart value is only the function of some particular ideology; if literary theoryassumes itself to be an objective and justi ed study of literature, theory insiststhat any kind of literary study be a representation of “theoretical politics”.the “campus became the battle eld”, with cultural wars breaking out anywhere.The political struggle in reality enters the campus and classrooms, takingknowledge as a primary approach to liberty (Eagleton).33 There appeared anupsurge of numerous theories: cultural studies, feminism, post-colonialism,gender studies, queer theory, ecological criticism, etc., merging into a radicaltorrent of thought. Some scholars point out, “Theory is ‘radical’ in that it affectsfundamentally the relation one has to the processes and conventions of a given(lien-inlinp T|1Pn I ("I"l5II‘h(J'PQ ‘I'l'n=\ vprw r‘-nnriifinnq n'Frr=1-nrlinrl lifar-Ahrrn r=~Yr\PriPnr~in0\‘l.lJ\-/LlIl..Ir.LI.\Jn L Ll\J\)LJ \/I.I.Ivl'l.Lb\lL,' U]-l.\J I \-I].-J \/\Jl.L\ll.UJ.\/ILL, \IL ].\/I-l'\aI-]..L]..b L.I..\r\J].\v\'Iv\wl].\-I’ \JlLlJ\J.I.. l.\d']..1.\l'LI.l&

a painting, or sociological investigation. It goes to the root of those ‘essential’and ‘fundamental’ operations and terminologies which function as disciplinarystudy. Theory ‘revolutionizes’ these unquestioned foundation. Theory can be saidto be radical, then it is also the sense in which theory is political. Theorychallenges institutional traditions and liberal/bourgeois/lrumanist/empiricist(delete as applicable) fancies, and enables the reader to question their approachto a reception of given apri0ris”.34

Post-TheoryAs an old Chinese saying goes, “There is always an end to a feast”, there is alsono exception for theory.

Jameson was the rst person who posted an “obituary” for theory. Early in the1990s, he sighed that the heroic times of theory seemed to have come to an end,indicated by the death of its founders such as Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan,Roman O. Jakobson, Herbert lvlarcuse, etc. I-Ie lamented that there wouldprobably be no more new discoveries in the eld of language studies compatibleto structuralism in the l960s.35 Ten years later, Eagleton’s “mourning” soundedeven more dismal: it seems that God is not a structuralist; upon the departure of

33 Terry Eagleton, pp. 25-26.34 Martin McQuillan, Grame MacDonald, Robin Purves, and Stephen Thomas, 1999, p. 10.35 Fredric Jameson, 1997, p. 303.

l4 ZHOU Xian

theoretical masters, “the golden age of cultural theory is long past”.36 Since the177Ub, LUU Bllllbl U1 l.11UUl.Ul.1\/ LU1lLLl1ldLU1 Lldb DLCU. l.UU LU rrauru. l.LlU dk/Cl.LlU1lLlLz L/1l.\/1U.

The emergence of the so-called post-theory after theory has displayed someremarkable features of development.Firstly, although post-theory marks the decline of grand narratives of

modemity, it still bears some features of the grand theory in its own paradigm. Tosome extent, “after-theory” is a theoretical substitute after the postmodernparadigm. As Jameson proclaims, it is time to leave and do something else.Therefore, it is better not to shout any illusory slogans like “great breakthroughs”

301-\11 rnnra n 11-\rrl-I-nr drrnrn 11111;!-I1 1-\n1-(i~r\nr-1-itrn " 7 “T)r\ci+i‘I-1-1nr\1~x r” or-r-nrzqin rr 1-nU11] l.1l.\J.l. U, .l..l.\J‘ 1.1161» LlaL¢.l. .l_I. \J.l..l.1 YY 11.l.\Jl.l 1J\./1 D-t]\J\-J‘ L]. Y ‘J0 .l. LID L LLl\J\)1 -7 , (.l»\.l\-l\J'L \-I-L115 l,\J'

Culler, is the theory after the death of the “grand theory”. It seems that oneproperty of the “post-theory” is that it is the departure om the “grand theory”;instead of ambitiously designing another grand narrative to explain everything, itmoves on to explore various possible “small theories”. Post-theory puts moreweight on diversity and locality, favoring neither the monotonous linguistic modeof modern literary theory, nor the interdisciplinary mode of postmodern theory,but a new paradigm with combined merits of both modes. This is because after‘l'l'rr=~ nnqf qhurnhrrnl Q rl nnqf 111nrlPr|1 i qfi nn n r\'Fnl11rs|li‘I'\I 1'l1r=\ nfin ni: H19I-vLI.\J tI\.lL,\r—LJ'Iw.I..\vl-\J\w\/llblvl. LlI1\-I tI\IL-‘Ir_.I..J..L\I\»l-\J.I..l.L _|I\v1LJ'Iv.I..I...I..\-/\/lIr].\J'I1l. \-1'1. till-l'J.L\vJ...I..Ir-I, Iw].L\-I Il.\Jl-.I..\-in \-VJ. \w].l.\-I

essentialism and universalism has to be subject to closer scrutiny. From this pointof view, post-theory is more self-re exive than the all-encompassing grandtheory, which, as a systematic creation of knowledge, often results in a“disciplinary imperialism” whose single perspective ampli es some problems,while concealing the others. The worst is that this “disciplinary imperialism”lacks self-criticism, so it must be supplemented by alternative theories arisingfrom the strategic modi cation and new modes of knowledge production. Smalltheories in some way provide the possibility. A quotation from Derrida oftencited when discussing “post-theory”: “[A]s if with the help of a new opticaldevice, one could nally see sight, could not only view the natural landscape, thecity, the bridge, the abyss, but ‘view’ viewing.”38 The citation is interestingbecause usually only the objects, such as the cities or the countryside, can beseen, but “Seeing” itself can’t be seen. However, with the help of some visualdevices, one can “see” how the seeing is going on. What Derrida wants to stresshere is actually the importance of self-re exivity. In terms of literary studies,self-re exivity means one should not only study literature, but also study the“study” itself. The post-theory featured by difference can be regarded as a “newvisual device”. That’s why Martin McQuillarr describes post-theory as a mentalstate, where one nds himself in an ever-stretching mental extension, and an

36 Terry Eagleton, 2003, p. 1.37 Fredric Jameson, 1997, pp. 303-304.3* Jaques Derrida, 2004, p. 154.

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 15

introspective experience of the nrirrd. 39Secondly, when saying Good-bye to the grand theory, the post-theory still has

to draw attention to another tendency—to reduce literary study into trivialexamination of some small details. Along with literary theory, there have alsobeen other kinds of theories categorized by Jameson as the “in-depth” type,striving to dig out the hidden meaning or essence beneath the literary symbols.Yet with the appearance of theory (especially of post-structuralism), meaning andessence have been totally deconstructed. The grand theory, while throwing thedirty water away after bathing the “baby”, also lost the “baby” in it. The boomingl"'I11i'II1‘l’11 (ihizlinci on 0 ‘I-ril-\1il-Q fn 1-liair onfiinlifici-ni uni] l'11'1+‘;if-‘|I)(i(i‘;(I(i 1-\o‘l~rir\fi(i~r'n fnnlr\Jl-»l1LlI-|-(.IJ. DI/Ll\l-I-\./£3, (Li) Cl L.I..lL7LlI,\.I L\J‘ I/.l1LI.l.l Cl-rl.].l,1 \./l..l.l'.l.Dl..l..l. UJ.1\.I- Cl-alllll. \-ll.‘-l~l)Dl.\-ID J:)(lL.l1\JL1D111’ I-v\J\J‘l\

the everyday life and mass culture into its scrutiny, only ended in a trivializationof its research. Hence, post-theory with a better self-re exivity has to takecaution of this trap. Eagleton manifests that if literary research is reduced to thestudy of sex or sexual representations, it will no doubt leave more criticalproblems aside. He proclaims that after theory, there must be a turn to “problemsof a grand kind” neglected by cultural studies, such as truth, ethics, objectivity,morality, revolution, death, evil and non-being. It is in this sense that someQ h l f nrnriip flisif flip rpnl rniqqinn n'F flip nriqf_fliprirU in fn pvrilnrp sill lzinrie n'Fl-,\/I.I.\J'I.\vI'l.Ll Ivlv.Ir.&\vl\/ ‘ILI.‘v‘v‘r I-'Ll.\-I L\|lIvlv.I.. Ll.I..I-L-‘L-‘l.\J'Ll. \-PL IvLI.\-I I_I\-ll-III IrL]..\J\I.I..-I LL) Ir\J' \JlL1IL\JJ.\J I-lull.‘ ]..\.I.L.l.\¢ll-, \-'1.

possibilities about the problems that have so far never been touched or speculatedon.40 But this job can only be ful lled by scrupulous self-re ection. And thegrand problems concealed by the “grand theory” and cultural studies will beexposed through the perspectives of small theories after theory.Moreover, the context for knowledge production has also changed in the

post-theory era. If the historical transition from literary theory to theory can beviewed as a continuous process of institutionalization, with knowledge expansionand knowledge oonsurnption, and the ever more institutionalized literary researchat universities, the distinguished theorists now have virtually turned into stars onthe academic stage. Their theoretical pursuit has become a struggle for symboliccapital; and transnrission of their theories has changed into consunrption of theirknowledge nrerchandizing. In fact, theory rises with the declining of political left.The political practice in society is converted to a theoretical debate in class.Gradually, post-theory research is being reduced to some technical activities inhigher educational system, such as the setting of disciplines, the arrangement ofcurricula, the publication of textbooks, the operation of research programs andacademic journals, and the organization and participation in internationalconferences. The current theoretical exploration is increasingly con ned to theinteractions within the academic sphere, or to the intellectual trainings in class.Since research setting is also an indispensable part of post-theory’s introspection,

Z Martin McQuillan, Grame MacDonald, Robin Purves, and Stephen Thomas, 1999, p. 15.Ibid. p 24.

16 ZHOU Xian

it is clearly urgent for post-theory to solve the dilenmra so as to reach a|.rr€‘:Oi'6l’1CEir |.r 1’iSC€:1"iu6‘ C€‘:. rum-urt;ur_y', do rruwu uy 1Vi?ur \_/arr‘L1S arru uurcr rsurrurarS,

“is not understood in its facile and improbable sense of a condition ‘after theory’,‘theory overcome’ or even ‘without theory’, but rather as an undertaking (withoutnecessarily, any of an undertaker’s duties). This undertaking involves, rst of all,theory’s task in theorizing its own institutionalisation and intemationalisation;and secondly it envisages a critical return upon theory’s ‘others’ (its repressed, itsexcluded, its unthought) in terms of theory ‘yet to come’.”4lFinally, post-theory also symbolizes the return to the literary. With the focus

1.1 .r;., an . -....; .»a-ti1 fl-1CD C QnCD-H-Q11 in flan rrrorrrl 1-srn arm: f +111‘ 0 0 (1:7"l"'l'{‘\l\11 r 01 rn11(1~ri1r+1n11LL\.1\l LU |4.|.].\J 5.l(.ll.l\1l l:)1\JlJ1\J1J.l.D, l..l.L I.-Ll.L\J Ch") (1 D.y1LllJ\.J'1l. \Jl.(»l».|. 'Ll\Jl.lDl-albl-\-/lJ.\Jl.l

gradually loses its aesthetic features in the ideological analyses. Susan Sontagraised the barlner of “against theory” long ago, giving the fetishism of theory asevere strike. She stressed the unique sensual (aesthetic) experience of art,opposing “further to assimilate Art into Thought, or (worse yet) Art intoCulture”.42 Murray Krieger also wamed that“the aesthetic can have its revengeupon ideology by revealing a power to complicate that is also a power tounderrnine.”43 Nonetheless, the revenge is not a mere retum to the linguistic or‘Fri nnrsrriirririq ni: lifprn r flipnrv liiif 9| rpfiirn fn flip $IPQ‘|'l'1P‘|'1(‘ flirriii 0-liI-.\) Iv ‘til-U]. Idlv\»l'l.bl.l.IrL, \IL l.LIv\JL DU]. J Irl.L\J\.)'.I-.7 , ll‘-vI'\r DU l.\JIr\vl'.lI.I. \r\/ I-'1.L\J Ivl'\JL,Ir].J.\/\rL I-'1.LI..\I\vlbl.I.

cc avtheory s ability of self-re exivity after its rise and death . Therefore, the“revenge” is not just a simple negation of the past, but an upward spiral invarious forms of theory in the new light of self-re exivity. In today’s Chineseacademic circle, there also exist a list of controversial issues, such as the con ictbetween literary study and cultural study, the aesthetics of everyday life, and theproblem of aesthetic ideology. This may well be regarded as a representation ofthe post-theory in contemporary Chinese context.

E3:5~..if

CD -F

ReferencesAntoine Compagrron (2004), Literature, Theory and Common Sense, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Charles Percy Snow (1998), The Two Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Daphen Patai & Will H. Corral (2005) (eds.), Theorjyfs Empire, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

David Macey (2000), The Penguin Dictionary ofCritical Theory, London: Penguin.Fredric Jameson (1997), Postrnociernism, oi; The Cuiturai Logic ofLate Capitaiism, Beijing:

Sanlian shudian.Ivan Callus & Stefan Herbrechter (2004) (eds.), Post-theory, Culture, Criticism, Amsterdam:Rodopi.

41 Ivan Callus & Stefan Herbrechter, 2004, p. 8.42 Susan Sontag, 1989, p. 550.43 Murray Krieger, 1992, p. 258.

Literary Theory, Theory, and Post-Theory 17

Jaques Derrida (2004), The Eyes of University: The Right to Philosophy, Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.

Jonathan Culler (1997), Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Jonathan Culler (2000), “The Literary in Literature,” in Judith P. Butler, John Guillory, andKendall Thomas (eds.), Whats Le ofTheory, London: Routledge.

Judith P. Butler, John Guillory, & Kendall Thomas (2000) (eds.), Whats Le ‘ of Theory,London: Routledge.

Lawrence Cahoone (1996) (ed.), From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology, London:Blackwell.

Martin McQuillan, Grame MacDonald, Robin Purves, and Stephen Thomas (1999) (eds.),Post-Theory: New Directions in Criticism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Michael P. Clark (2000) (ed.), Revenge of the Aesthetic: The Place ofLiterature in TheoryToday, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Michel Foucault (2001), The Order of Things: an Archaeology of the Human Sciences,Shanghai: SDX Joint Publishing Company.

Murray Krieger (1992), Ekphrasis: The Illusion of the Natural Sign, Baltimore: HopkinsUniversity Press.

Paul de Man (1986), The Resistance to Theory, Mimreapolis: University ofMimresota Press.Paul Ricoeur (1981), Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action andInterpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

René Wellek & Austin Warren (1984), Theory of Literature, New York: Harcourt Brace &Company. (3rd Ed)

René Wellek (2005), “Destroying Literary Studies,” in Daphen Patai & Will H. Corral (eds.),Theory Is-' Empire, New York: Columbia University Press.

Roger Smith (1997), The Fontana History ofthe Human Sciences, London: Fantana.Stuart Hall (1997) (ed.), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices,London: Sage.

Susan Sontag (1989), “Against Interpretation,” in David H. Richter (ed.), The CriticalTradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, New York: St. Ma1tin’s, 1989, p. 550.

I"Tony Eagleton (1996), Literam Ti:-.eoiy.' An innoduction, Minneapolis: University orMinnesota Press. (2nd Ed.)

Terry Eagleton (2003), A fer Theory, New York: Basic.Wilhelm Dilthey (2002), Introduction to the Human Sciences, Beijing: Zhongguo chengshi

chubanshe.

About the ContributorZhou Xian J3 % , currently Professor in School of Liberal Arts, NanjingUniversity, gradated from Nanjing University with his Ph.D. in 1998. Hisinterests of research focus on literary theory, cultural studies, and philosophyof art. His previous publications include Shijue wenhua ale zhuanxiang i<El' ;_.i'3‘[’H3li4J1'F§|’ J (The Turn of Visual Culture), Shenmei xiandaixing pipan $%1ll’l’¢'|’li.i’ll1§*'l (Critique of Aesthetic Modernity), and Zhongguo a'anga'ai shenmeiwenhua yanjiu PP E ‘_¥| PC '35’ i E {J5 iii % (On the Aesthetic Culture in

18 ZHOU Xian

Contemporary China).

About the TranslatorZheng Congrong 3@|3}>k?§, a former M.A. graduate of English Language andLiterary Studies at Nanjing University, has entered a doctoral program on literarytheory and theory at School of Liberal Arts of the university since 2008. She haspublished seven papers on literary studies, literary theory, or English teaching ina couple of Chinese academic Journals, along with two English-Chinesetranslations in Translation (Yilin i%?|9|<). In addition, she has edited or co-editedve dictionaries or reference books on English learning.