BDSL-Klassifikation: 03.00.00 Literaturwissenschaft > 03.06.00 Literaturtheorie
Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Language
- English (3)
- German (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Literaturtheorie (5) (remove)
"The golden age of cultural theory is long past" - with this statement, Terry Eagleton begins his puzzling reflections on the era "After Theory" - that's the title of his book, first published in 2001. If the invasion of literary and cultural theory has come to an end, as Eagleton suggests, theory will probably become a simple object of the history of ideas. But what theoretical implications accompany the discourse of a possible and even probable end of theory? In this so-called era after theory, literary criticism quickly decided to take new steps: the Anglo-American tradition of "Cultural Studies" attempted to replace the theoretical impact of French theory with a more empirical approach to literary texts. At the same time, good old philology raised its hand to oppose the topographical turn of cultural studies as well as the deconstructive turn against all forms of presence. [...] For Foucault, philology is nothing more than a part of the historical discourse of the nineteenth century, an old-fashioned term that lacks any impact on contemporary problems. For this and other reasons, Foucault showed little interest in more recent models of philology. But maybe instead of subscribing too easily to the notion that we live in an era after theory, where problems of literary theory are replaced by concepts of discourse and culture that no longer pay any attention to literature, what is called for is an investigation of the impact of philological understanding in the humanities.
It may indeed seem that while the late 1970s and early 1980s were the period when theory was successfully established in western academic discourse, we have now entered an era "after theory" in which not only 'cultural theory' has come to an end but also a specific culture of theory has vanished from our seminars, departments, and universities: a culture of reflection, abstraction, and self-referentiality that had been at the heart of the humanities from the very beginning. And yet, theory is not so easily abolished but rather stored and maintained within each individual reading of a literary text in spite of empirical trends such as DH or pessimistic manifestos. Therefore, in what follows, Nicolas Pethes is interested in an additional aspect of the textual resistance of theory against the institutional resistance to theory: the relation between theory and practice, that is: the question whether acting is also one of the many languages of theory.
In recent years, the interest in theory which has once been a moving force of academic research in the field of literary studies appears to have decreased. The status of theory, its relevance and appropriateness for the understanding of literature have been put into doubt. Faced with this observation, some critics have even suggested that we have now entered into a new era of research which can retrospectively be identified as the era "after theory". Against the background of such pronouncements and to a certain extent in opposition to them, the investigations proposed here wish to uphold the idea of the utility and indeed the need for theoretical approaches to literature. To appreciate the status of theory and its possible contribution to a deepened understanding of literature, it is useful not to focus exclusively on the distinction or supposed divide between literature and theory. Instead we should pay attention to what links and unites them. This common ground or common denominator of literature and theory consists in the dimension of language. Furnishing, so to speak, the intellectual material from which both domains of articulation are formed, language constitutes at once the key element of literature and a principal concern of theory.
In recent years, the interest in theory which has once been a moving force of academic research in the field of literary studies appears to have decreased. The status of theory, its relevance and appropriateness for the understanding of literature have been put into doubt. Faced with this observation, some critics have even suggested that we have now entered into a new era of research which can retrospectively be identified as the era "after theory". Against the background of such pronouncements and to a certain extent in opposition to them, the investigations proposed here wish to uphold the idea of the utility and indeed the need for theoretical approaches to literature. To appreciate the status of theory and its possible contribution to a deepened understanding of literature, it is useful not to focus exclusively on the distinction or supposed divide between literature and theory. Instead we should pay attention to what links and unites them. This common ground or common denominator of literature and theory consists in the dimension of language. Furnishing the intellectual material from which both domains of articulation are formed, language constitutes at once the key element of literature and a principal concern of theory. [...] The present volume collects the papers presented in the context of the panel "Languages of Theory" at the conference of the "International Association of Comparative Literature" (ICLA) at Vienna in July 2016. As stated above, our aim is to examine the philological or linguistic preoccupations of current approaches in literary and cultural theory, to look into the (pre-)history of theory's engagement with linguistic concerns and to unfold its conceptual and semantic implications. Taking our cue from the title of the ICLA conference, "The Many Languages of Comparative Literature", we have found it to be a rewarding task to raise the issue of the "languages of theory" and to promote its further exploration and analysis. It is our contention that theoretical approaches and reflections do not only rightfully hold their place in comparative literature studies but that it is also worthwhile to interrogate their conceptual genealogies and terminological choices, their styles of thought and argument as well as their various linguistic engagements. The articles united in this volume have taken up this challenge and attempt to elucidate the intricate relationship of language and theory in exemplary case studies.
Es ist oft gesagt worden: Das Komische ist das Eigene des Menschen, nur der Mensch - und kein anderes Wesen - lacht. Begründet wurde dies häufig durch die Kennzeichnung des Menschen als Doppelwesen, das sich selbst widersprechen kann. Der Mensch gilt als Wesen, das gleichermaßen über einen Körper und einen Geist verfügt, als Wesen, das vom Zufall heimgesucht wird, aber auch zum Erhabenen fähig ist, oder als Wesen, das durch eine "individuelle[ ]" und eine "soziale[ ] Existenz" ausgezeichnet ist und deshalb "mit irgendeiner Norm" in Konflikt geraten kann. Jeweils ist es die Kollision der beiden Seiten, die nach den verschiedenen theoretischen Ansätzen zur Hervorbringung des komischen Phänomens führt und so - als Reaktion auf die Wahrnehmung des komischen Phänomens - das Lachen verursacht.