Florian Mussgnug
University College London
LITERARY THEORY AND ITALIAN STUDIES
1. Literary theory is easy to spot but surprisingly difficult to define. Abstract and
systematic reflection about the nature of literature and the methods for its study may go
under the name of literary theory, yet this is not what is usually meant by the term. So
what is literary theory? One of the most striking characteristics of literary theory is that
many of its most influential works are not about literature in the strict sense. Instead, they
belong to a body of thinking whose limits are constantly changing and which ranges
across subject areas as diverse as philosophy, anthropology and psychology,
psychoanalysis, sociology, theology and art history. Literary theory – or simply “theory”,
as many prefer to call it – hence appears as a miscellaneous genre which challenges
disciplinary boundaries and applies the results of innovative research and thinking to
fields other than those to which they apparently belong. As Richard Rorty puts it, “a new
kind of writing has developed which is neither the evaluation of the relative merits of
literary production, nor intellectual history, nor moral philosophy, nor social prophecy,
but all of these mingled together in a new genre”.
If literary theory has a distinct identity as a relatively new genre, what is its relation to
literary studies? Recently, some influential literary theorists announced a turning-point in
contemporary literature studies and suggested that the discipline is increasingly moving
away from its focus on literary theory which had characterised it since the 1970s.
According to Terry Eagleton – author of a popular introduction to literary theory
(Eagleton 1983) – deconstruction, cultural studies, postcolonial theory and gender studies
have become a new academic orthodoxy, which literature scholars ought to resist by
engaging with a wider range of concerns including social utopia, morality and death
(Eagleton 2004). In a similar vein, Fredrick Jameson, deplores that many key
assumptions of Postmodernist theory appear superseded as literary studies return to a
much more traditional outlook inspired by philosophical ethics and aesthetics (Jameson
2002). Even more radically, Franco Moretti, calls for an entirely new understanding of
literary studies, which resists literary theory’s concern with particular texts and replaces it
with a systematic, quantitative analysis of modes of literary production and representation
(Moretti 2005). Are these works symptomatic of a general trend away from literary
theory? If literary theory, as it has been understood during the 1980s and 1990s, is no
longer central to literary studies, what, if anything, has come to replace it?
2. Prophecies about the supposed end of literary theory may be read as important (and
vital) signs of the well-being of literary theory. As Jonathan Culler points out, literary
theory is best thought of as a constantly changing, dynamic field of interdisciplinary
critical investigation. (Culler 1997). According to Culler, literary theory’s defining task
consists in questioning common sense, i.e. critical concepts that are taken as natural. In
order to achieve this aim, literary theory must constantly challenge its own assumptions
and question its orthodoxies. As well as being interdisciplinary, analytical and
speculative, literary theory is inherently self-reflective and therefore, as Culler says,
“intimidating and endless”. Yet – despite this tendency towards self-reflexivity – there
are good reasons to suppose that the discipline is currently undergoing a more radical
process of transformation than in previous decades. This becomes particularly obvious
when one considers the relationship between literary theory and cultural studies.
Originally part of the same effort towards a radical innovation of the humanities and
social sciences in the 1970s and 1980s, the two disciplines are now viewed as
substantially different or even intrinsically antagonistic by some chief exponents of either
field. According to Michael Riffaterre, literary theory is defined by a specific focus on
close textual analysis and by a high degree of abstraction which is in principle justified
by the assumption that the same general theoretical models may be applied to all forms of
literary communication. Cultural studies, on the other hand, analyse all cultural
phenomena as sets of codes and practices and consequently do not make any categorical
distinctions between different levels of cultural production. Besides, scholars working in
the field of cultural studies often consider the possibility of a single theoretical frame of
reference as highly problematic and tend to concentrate on specific cultural and historical
contexts. If literary theory’s current “crisis” is more than merely an expression of its
intrinsic self-reflexivity, it is likely to lead to an increasing differentiation of the two
fields. Literary theory, as it took shape between the 1960s and 1980s may play a much
smaller role in the academic institutions of the future if the methodological concerns and
interests of cultural studies gain further influence and if literary studies will be generally
perceived and taught as a particular application of cultural studies.
3. Literary theory, as an open-ended, interdisciplinary dialogue, produces its own set of
canonical texts. Compared to most other subject areas, the canon of theory appears
unusually flexible and diverse. While some texts are considered essential reading by most
literary theorists, no book is treated as absolutely indispensable. In fact, most anthologies
and introductions to literary theory emphasise this fact and explicitly state their reasons
for selecting some texts and schools of thought rather than others. In this context, it may
be useful to compare and contrast some particularly influential recent anthologies and
introductions to literary theory.
P. Barry, Beginning Theory. An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, 1995.
A. Bennett and N. Royle, An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, 2004.
T. Eagleton, Literary Theory. An Introduction, Oxford, Blackwell, 1983.
A. Jefferson and D. Robey (eds), Modern Literary Theory, 1982.
D. Lodge (ed.), Modern Criticism and Theory. A Reader, 1988.
J. Rivkin and M. Ryan (eds), Literary Theory. An Anthology, 2004.
Scholars working in Modern Languages departments often give particular attention to
theoretical works that have been written in their national language, or that are otherwise
relevant to their area of specialisation. French departments in the UK frequently offer
courses in Structuralist and Post-Structuralist French theory; many German departments
are particularly open to Hermeneutics and Reception Theory; English and American
literature departments in continental Europe have played an important part in the spread
of New Historicism etc. Compared to other European languages (especially French and
German), Italian apparently plays a rather marginal role in the canon of literary studies.
David Lodge’s influential anthology (Lodge 1988), for instance, includes Umberto Eco
as the only Italian writer; other anthologies contain essays by Eco and Gramsci and, in
one case, an early essay by Italo Calvino, included in a section on literature and political
commitment. Evidently, this selection is in no way representative of the current status of
literary theory in Italy. Since the 1960s, Italian literary scholars have engaged with a wide
variety of theoretical concerns and schools of thought, many of which have been radically
re-interpreted by Italian theorists. Nevertheless, Italian literary theory continues to have a
very small impact on the international canon. In Britain, Italian Studies have been
characterised by a strong philological tradition and, more recently, by a wide-ranging and
consistent interest in cultural studies. The engagement with literary theory, on the other
hand, has been most manifest on the level of individual research and not in the
discipline’s overall development. Unlike some of their colleagues in other Modern
Languages departments, British Italianists with a strong interest in theory mostly do not
wish to propagate a specifically Italian approach to the discipline. Quite on the contrary,
they often see themselves as mediators between different national and methodological
traditions. For them, the absence of one dominant theoretical approach to literary studies
often becomes a source of creativity and innovation. Instead of working within an
institutionalised frame of reference, they shift between margins and explore the
seemingly peripheral status of their discipline – Italian studies as a periphery of
conventional literary theory; literary theory as a marginal concern of traditional Italian
studies – in order to look beyond the obvious, towards new boundaries.
References and suggestions for further reading:
Bal, Mieke (ed), The practice of Cultural Analysis, Stanford, Standord University Press, 1999.
Baldick, Chris, Criticism and Literary Theory, 1890 to the Present, London, Longman, 1996.
Baranski, Zygmunt and Rebecca West (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Modern Italian Culture,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Barry, Peter, Beginning Theory. An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, Manchester, Manchester
University Press, 1995.
Bennett, Andrew and Nicholas Royle, An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, London,
Longman, 2004.
Berheimer, Charles, Comparative Literature in the age of Multiculturalism, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1995.
Bottoni, Luciano and Ezio Raimondi (eds), Teoria della letteratura, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1975.
Ceserani, Remo, Guida allo studio della letteratura, Roma – Bari, Laterza, 1999.
Culler, Jonathan, Literary Theory. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997.
During, Simon (ed), The Cultural Studies Reader, London, Routledge, 1993.
Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory. An Introduction, Oxford, Blackwell, 1983.
---.
After Theory, London, Penguin, 2004.
Easthope, Antony, British Post-structuralism since 1968, London, Routledge, 1988.
---.
Literary into Cultural Studies, London, Routledge, 1991.
Fiske, John, Understanding Popular Culture, Boston, Unwin, 1989.
Forgacs, David and Robert Lumley, Italian Cultural Studies. An Introduction, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1996.
Jameson, Fredric, Singular Modernity, London, Verso, 2002.
Jefferson, Anne and David Robey (eds), Modern Literary Theory, Barnes and Noble, 1982.
Lavagetto, Mario (ed), Il testo letterario. Istruzioni per l’uso, Roma – Bari, Laterza, 1996.
Lodge, David (ed), Modern Criticism and Theory. A Reader, London, Longman, 1988.
Moretti, Franco, La letteratura vista da lontano, Torino, Einaudi, 2005.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan (eds), Literary Theory. An Anthology, Oxford, Blackwell, 2004.
Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the mirror of nature, Oxford, Blackwell, 1980.
---.
Contingency, irony and solidarity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
---.
Truth and Progress, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Selden, Raman (ed), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. viii, From Formalism to
Poststructuralism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995.