De: walter a davis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
        Asunto: Re: RV: the demise of theory?

        Those who think they don't have a theory simply have one that they refuse to
        become aware of.  Because as Kant demonstrated, all interpretive insights
        are a function of the framework one is using.  I.e., the theory--implicit or
        explicit.  "Erudition" is simply a set of assumptions that because they
        refuse to become aware of themselves are condemned to a dogmatism of
        "sensibility" that finally becomes effete.
        Unfortunately, the theory movement was siezed largely by careerists who were
        unequipped to do the kind of philosophic work theory requires.  As a result
        we got fads and coteries. But then that's what our little profession has
        always been primarily, hasn't it?
        Walter (Mac) Davis
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Murray Schwartz" <[log in to unmask]>
        To: <[log in to unmask]>
        Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 12:13 PM
        Subject: RV: RV: the demise of theory?


        >        De: julia guernsey-shaw [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
        >        Asunto: Re: RV: the demise of theory?
        >
        >        Hi all:
        >
        >        This is  not so much a coherent response to the article on theory
        > linked in the post quoted below as a tangent sparked by reading it--
        >
        >        but at what point does Post-Freudian psychoanalytic method as a way
        > of understanding literature (or art or whatever) become more than a branch
        > of "theory"--subject to the vicissitudes of a fad.
        >
        >        I know, for instance, that literary critics have been using
        > Winnicottian object relations ideas for decades to explain various  early
        > modern literary texts; yet often when I send out an essay taking a
        > Winnicottian approach (to Donne, to Milton, etc) I get the "Who is
        > Winnicott" critique of my efforts.  There seem to be very few journals
        > (PsyArt being an exception) that don't require extensive explanation of
        > the "theory" before it can be applied to the literature.   But (it seems)
        > by the time one explains the "theory" satisfactorily--again--one has lost
        > space for using Winnicottian method to go deeper into the literature and
        > its psychological and social implications.  And then the article becomes
        > suspect as "mere theory"--a faddish slight of hand, an intellectual
        > self-indulgence.
        >
        >        Another thing I've been wondering in reading this listserv over the
        > past few weeks is whether the neurophysiological discussion is the path of
        > future literature-and-psychology research.  Will it supplant
        > psychoanalytic method or supplement it?  How will it be applied (say to
        > the formal features of literature?)  What is the relationship (if any)
        > between Winnicott's notion of a true self (bodily based) and recent
        > research indicating there is indeed a physiological component to human
        > identity and relational capacities in the workings of the brain?
        >
        >        I hope some of this makes sense and interests someone out there as
        > a discussion topic.  I'd like to hear more.
        >
        >        Best,
        >        Julie Guernsey-Shaw
        >
        >        Murray Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
        >
        >                De: William Benzon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
        >                Asunto: the demise of theory?
        >
        >                About 30 years ago, the study of theory displaced the study
        > of literature
        >                itself in many graduate departments in the US, particularly
        > in the field of
        >                comparative literature. "But Theory lost its novelty some
        > two decades ago,
        >                and many years have passed since anybody except the
        > theorists themselves
        >                took the latest versions seriously. And as for disciplinary
        > competence, the
        >                humanities are so splintered and compartmentalized that one
        > can pursue a
        >                happy career without ever reading a word of Bhabha or
        > Butler. Finally, while
        >                the historical import of Theory remains to be seen,
        > indications of oblivion
        >                are gathering. Not only are the theorists largely unread
        > outside of graduate
        >                classrooms, but even among younger scholars within the
        > humanities fields the
        >                reading of th! em usually doesn¹t extend beyond the
        > anthologies and a few
        >                landmarks such as Discipline and Punish." Here's a new book
        > with samples of
        >                what it was all about, if there's anyone left to care.
        >
        >
        > http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=134
        >
        >
        >                --
        >
        >                William L. Benzon
        >                708 Jersey Avenue, Apt. 2A
        >                Jersey City, NJ 07302
        >                201 217-1010
        >
        >                "You won't get a wild heroic ride to heaven on pretty
        > little
        >                sounds."--George Ives
        >
        >                Mind-Culture Coevolution: http://asweknowit.ca/evcult/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >        __________________________________________________
        >        Do You Yahoo!?
        >        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        >        http://mail.yahoo.com
        >