Two interesting perspectives on literary theory and related pursuits; one from Elaine Showalter 1 and one from Scott McLemee (scroll down to January 10).
Showalter is reviewing a recent book by Terry Eagleton, once described unkindly in the pages of the LRB as a purveyor of Ladybird primers in cultural theory. Eagleton’s latest purports to revive cultural theory from its decline by demonstrating its potential to counter the growing hegemony of the right. By Showalter’s account, Eagleton doesn’t do a very good job; whenever he starts talking about practicalities, he either gets hazy or reaches for trite slogans.
The most serious drawbacks of After Theory are its internal contradictions — between an appeal to hard thinking and Eagleton’s prejudice; between the call for depth and analysis and the temptation of superficiality and vilification; between the endorsement of disturbing complexity and the surrender to comfortable simplification.
I suspect that Showalter has her own axe to grind, but it’s still a fair cop. Why study Lacanian theory if you want to discover the ‘insight’ that Tony Blair’s government is composed of “craven overseas lackeys of United States power”? It’s much easier to slip a quid to the bloke on the street selling Socialist Worker.
McLemee, who’s a fair bit to Showalter’s left, makes a related claim from a Marxist perspective. He quotes a nice (if slightly tendentious) summation of the problem by John McGowan:
Current criticism’s political content can only be assured if we believe in a ‘talking cure.’ The primary axiom of the whole edifice must be that the way we talk makes a difference. As someone rather attracted to both vulgar Marxism and to populism, the idealism (strictly speaking) and elitism of this position bothers me, especially since so many of its adherents believe they are Marxists. (I’m not playing St. Karl games here, just asking for truth in labeling.) To put the point vulgarly, the history of twentieth century capitalism attests to its thus far unthreatened capacity to endure all and any kinds of deviant talk without its essential economic and political structures being in the least altered. Furthermore, to bring in the populist element, highly deviant talk (as in modernist poety and various experimental novels) has proved itself of interest only to very small audiences of specialists. At the very least, I think the neo-Marxists need to formulate some theory of how deviant talk works its political miracles if we are to accept their attachment to it…. But idealist and elitist positions have not even begun to address the fact that they need a theory of change.”
This seems to me to connect back to some of the arguments that Crooked Timber and other folks have been having about literary theory and bad writing. Ever since its beginnings in the (excellent) work of Williams, Hoggart and Thompson, cultural theory has had the stated aim of opposing hegemony, speaking truth to power and all of that good stuff. But in the hands of Eagleton and his mates, it’s failed miserably. As McGowan says, there isn’t the hint of an argument about how poststructuralist theory is supposed to translate into political change. Even worse - the theory doesn’t serve to generate politically useful analysis. There’s tangled and knotty prose, there are trite slogans, but there doesn’t seem to be all that much in-between. If Eagleton’s version of cultural theory is a means of countering the shift toward the right, it’s not doing a very good job. There’s a rather substantial incongruity between the complexity of the theory and the banality of its political conclusions. Which suggests to me (opinions may differ) that the complexities aren’t as helpful as they were cracked up to be in the first place.
1 Hat-tip to my friend Carl Caldwell for pointing me to the essay - he bears no responsibility for the consequent post.
I just finished the Eagleton book. As I read it, he wasn’t offering current cultural theory as a solution to anything.
Indeed, he argued that pomo-based cultural theory should be put out to pasture. He wants a new approach to analysis based on “objective” morality. (He really wasn’t very clear exactly what he meant by that, however).
But, still, much of his book is really not very good. It is far too vague and Eagleton too often relies on quips rather than arguments to make his points.
At the end of the book he offers standard (non-pomo) leftist perspectives on what to do.
You imply that Eagleton was or is a poststructuralist, which is not the case.
It is a shame that cultural theory hasn’t lived up to the liberatory record of political science.
Academic poststructuralist theory isn’t storming the barricades, true - but then, what kind of academic theory is, or could do? That’s not the point; academics qua academics aren’t revolutionaries, but that doesn’t mean poststructuralism isn’t useful to revolutionaries. The globalisation movement is awash with ideas influenced by theory, whether that’s the Deep Ecologists in the US, with their connection to Heideggerian critiques of technology (see, for example. Michael Zimmerman), or the Disobeddienti in Italy, whose communiques use a lot of the Deleuzian language of the autonomous Marxists.
Eagleton is a bit of a boring old Marxist, and you can certainly get boring old Marxism from the Socialist Worker; but a lot of people doing genuinely radical political work find Deleuze and Gauttari’s discussion of rhyzomatic organisation useful in building alternatives to Socialist Worker-style Leninism, or Judith Butler’s ideas about performativity useful in trying to come up with alternatives to the traditional dichotomy of peaceful protest/riot.
The work by Eagleton I have read is “After Postmodernism” which though published a while ago, seems to be quite similar to some of what you describe. The problem with Eagleton’s analysis is that he isn’t really all that sympathetic to post-structuralism as a school of thought and so I think some of his attempts to reclaim it fall a bit flat on the ground. As noted above, at heart he remains quite an orthodox Marxist, and if you look at his autobiography, he is never happier than when taking the Post-structuralists to task for accommodating themselves to capitalism.
I always did think that by its very nature in exposing the surface realities and immediate perception of the social and physical environment, much of post-structuralist theory was quite Marxian in origin and anti-establishment. The point of Eagleton and Co. is that this anti-establishment critique doesn’t necessarily go anywhere positive and just ends up in providing a foil to the system. To some degree this is true, but much of theory in this respect does criticise and reject a lot of what normal liberal-capitalist hegemony projects as ‘common-sense’ and in this respect I think this is a useful tool. The main objection by orthodox leftists is that once given these rather powerful tools, not a lot is done with them. In a sense, it reminds me of similar points which can be made about deconstructionism, if you want to critique or dismantle a concept or ideology it is a powerful methodical tool, but if you want to erect a positive programme in its place, it isn’t really going to be much help and can actually be more of a hindrance.
There’s a rather substantial incongruity between the complexity of the theory and the banality of its political conclusions.
In a way, I suppose this is something that has been said before. In the aftermath of the Berlin Wall’s collapse, when various old Marxists got together to figure out where things went wrong and indulge in some soul-searching; it was a chance for the left-inclined theoretically inclined Post-structuralist crowd to come forward with something to take its place. In as much as they did, it was really nothing more than moderate left-of-centre programme that any Left-liberal wouldn’t have a problem signing up to. If one is looking for a radical plan of action or some insight for actual politics, aside from some exceptions like Deleuze, I don’t think it will be forthcoming from this source.
>It is a shame that cultural theory hasn’t lived up to the liberatory record of political science.
A hit. A palpable hit. But then political science (for the most part) never pretended to offer a path to emancipation. Its disciplinary deformations (which are several) are different.
On Eagleton and poststructuralism - clearly he ain’t a poststructuralist as such, but somebody who has argued, as I understand him, that the kinds of theorizing that poststructuralists engage in, has political value for lefties. Colour me unconvinced.
Conrad - fair argument, which I’ll have to think about a bit more. I’ll confess to my shame that I’ve never delved into Deleuze and Guattari - always looked a little bit frightening.
“Academic poststructuralist theory isn?t storming the barricades, true - but then, what kind of academic theory is, or could do? “
Hmmm. Quantum mechanics has changed our world pretty dramatically. Perhaps that doesn’t count.
I’ve read pretty much everything Eagleton’s ever written, with the exception of this latest book, and I think he’s been pretty consistent in saying that poststructuralist theory has no leftist political value. I may be using a more precise definition of “poststructuralist” than you—Spivak, yes; Jameson, no, e.g.
Yep, Paul Dirac spent all his time building lasers, and Werner Heisenberg is famous for his invention of the silicon chip. Or possibly not.
Theoretical physics supplies intellectual tools which applied physicists can use to make practical methods which engineers can use to make things. Literary/cultural theory provides intellectual tools which political theoreticians (for want of a better term) can use to produce practical methods which political agents can use to produce political change. In neither case do the academics have a direct influence on the world (in their role as academics).
(BTW, apologies for usurping your name, tim - I’ve seen you on CT before, and should have remembered that you were the official tim around these parts).
“Theoretical physics supplies intellectual tools which applied physicists can use […] to make things. Literary/cultural theory provides intellectual tools which political theoreticians […] can use […] to produce political change.”
Interesting.
Except that theoretical physics supplies intellectual tools which have been used to make things. As for the literary theorists, I don’t think anyone doubts they supply intellectual tools which might be used to some end, the question is whether the tools actually work; whether they’ve actually produced anything.
To continue with the quantum physics thread, a number of the important theoretical physicists of the 20th century actually worked on the atomic bomb, for instance, Feynman, Ulam, Oppenheimer, and Fermi in the United States and Heisenberg in Germany.
“But then political science (for the most part) never pretended to offer a path to emancipation.”
You seem to imply that all theorists en masse do purport to offer a path to emancipation. My recollection is that most post-structuralists viewed Eagleton (and others who sought to link such ideas with political projects) with contempt.
Regarding most of the article, I was rather bemused. It is certainly true that Eagleton’s work has increasingly suffered from what William Gibson described as the predicament where “everything capitalism said about communism was true. As was everything communism said about capitalism.” But that is hardly unique to literary theory and it seems a little unfair to single Eagleton out for criticism on that score.
John Holbo has gone to some length to reconcile theory to the practice of lit-crit, including Eagleton. Albeit philosophically rather than politically.
The joke in Moscow a few years ago was: Everything the communists said about communism was a lie. Everything the communists said about capitalism was true. (and to hell with William Gibson)
Post-structuralism was an intellectual’s argument for the necessity, because inevitability- of art: politically and philosophically on the money, but obviously an excuse for an easy out. This is especially true in the US which seems to specialize in academicizing everything .
I grew up with a tapped phone line and under threat of removal from my parents home by the Feds. My father was a professor of american lit. whose favorite author was James. If you can’t imagine contradiction, stay away from politics.
I can’t imagine Terry Eagleton would say otherwise.
Gibson used that quote in his last novel, though I can well believe it was common currency long before then.
“I can’t imagine Terry Eagleton would say otherwise.”
Hmm. I can.
Just a note to say that I appreciate the link to Scott McLemee’s blog, as I read his old blog and corresponded with him for a while in 2002. Then his old blog went stagnant and we lost touch.
He’s a sharp and insightful guy and I recommend his writings highly,
Incidentally, I tried to write to McLemee via that “contact” form provided on his website (there is no email address provided), but the script generated an error.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review