Theory in the current framework has at least a half dozen different meanings, each of
which has a distinct reception history and set of effects. First, the term refers loosely to
the gamut of contemporary schools and movements, plus their roots and also their
offshoots in cultural studies. That is to say, it names the broad field and is synonymous
with criticism. Starting in the 1980’s and persisting to the present, conservative scholars
dedicated to mid-century moral and formalist analysis of canonical literary works have
waged a campaign against such theory (Bloom; Ellis.) [But is Bloom or Ellis opposed to
anything that is synonymous with criticism?] Second, theory designates general
principles and procedures - methods - as well as the self-reflection employed in all areas
of literary and cultural studies. A small but vigorous skirmish against such theory has
been enjoined by neopragmatists who oppose foundational principles, with the result that
few nowadawys defend theory in its most ambitious methodological or scientific
pretensions (Knapp and Michaels; Fish). [But are Knapp, Michaels and Fish against selfreflection?] Third, theory is widely considered a toolbox of flexible, useful contingent
devices, judged for their productivity and innovation. The critique of such pragmatic
theory, small in scale, has come from various defenders of objective interpretation,
ranging from curmudgeons committed to the old days before such theory to defenders of
New Criticism to more challenging hermeneuts (Harris; Mohanty) [But surely one of the
obvious criticisms of pragmatic flexibility - bit of this, a bit of that, to get what we want is that it is indistinguishable from the old days (so why is it pretending to be more
rigorous?) What genteel amateur ever failed to muster a bit of this and a bit of that?]
Fourth, theory denotes professional common sense - what goes without saying and what
every specialist knows - so that everyone in the field has a theory, although some people
don’t realize it. In this view theory is a sociohistorical construction compete with
contradictions and blind spots yet shored up by the current status quo. But the equating of
theory with professionally configured common sense paradoxically ends up diluting its
specificity, its conflicts, and its counterhegemonic agendas. [This one needs longer
discussion. The problem with defining theory as professional common sense is that it is
often defined - by Culler, for example - as something that challenges common sense
notions. Maybe this is what Leitch is getting at. But the problem isn’t so much that the
‘counterhegemonic agenda’ is threatened. More fundamentally, the concern must be that,
if theory is just what everyone thinks, something’s being theory doesn’t give us any
particular reason to accept it. It’s just the status quo.]Fifth, theory signifies more
narrowly structuralism and poststructuralism, the works of Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Foucault,
Deleuze, Derrida, Kristeva, and company, plus their followers and imitators [We’ll let
that pass and skip ahead a few sentences.] ... Sixth, theory names a historically new,
postmodern mode of discourse that broaches long-standing borders, fusing literary
criticism, philosophy, history, sociology, psychoanalysis, and politics. This crossdisciplinary pastiche is, not surprisingly, subject also to the broad critique of
postmodernism, notably for its undermining the hard won autonomy during modern times
for the university and the academic disciplines, particularly literary criticisms and
aesthetics.