Literary Latitude

Reading a poem or a novel appears to be the most natural of activities. A reader opens the book, follows the words, responds to the story or the feeling, and closes the book with some sense of pleasure or understanding. Literary theory begins at the moment when this apparently natural activity is interrupted by a set of questions. What is literature, and who decides which texts count as literary? What happens when we read, and is our reading ever free of the assumptions of our class, gender, caste, language and historical moment? Why do institutions such as universities teach some books and not others? These questions seem abstract, yet they touch the daily life of every student and teacher of literature. The purpose of this essay is to answer the question “why literary theory” in a simple and reflective way, to explain what understanding literary theory involves, and to consider what has happened to theory in the period that is often called “after theory”. The essay pursues these three concerns with particular reference to three fields that grew out of theory and, in different ways, outgrew it: cultural studies, subaltern studies and posthumanism. 

The first and simplest answer to the question “why literary theory” is that literature itself is not a stable or self-evident object. Terry Eagleton opens Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983) by demolishing the assumption that literature is a fixed body of writing with a permanent essence. Definitions based on imaginative writing fail because much non-fiction is read as literature, and definitions based on special language fail because ordinary speech is full of metaphor while some celebrated literature is written in plain prose. Eagleton concludes that literature is a functional rather than an ontological category, that is, a matter of what people do with writing rather than what writing inherently is. As he puts it, “Anything can be literature, and anything which is regarded as unalterably and unquestionably literature” can, in changed circumstances, “cease to be literature” (Eagleton, 1983, p. 10). If literature has no essence, then the values by which texts are selected, canonised [admitted into the list of officially approved great works] and taught must come from somewhere else, namely from history, ideology and institutional power. Theory exists to make that “somewhere else” visible.

The historical formation of English studies as a university discipline strengthens this argument. Matthew Arnold, in Culture and Anarchy (1869), famously defined culture as the pursuit of “the best which has been thought and said in the world”, and he assigned to literature the moral and social task that religion could no longer perform in an industrial and class-divided England. Chris Baldick (1983) has shown how this Arnoldian mission shaped the social purposes of English criticism, and Gauri Viswanathan, in Masks of Conquest (1989), demonstrated that English literary study was institutionalised in colonial India before it was established in England itself, as an instrument for producing loyal and morally disciplined colonial subjects. For a student in an Indian classroom, this history is not a distant curiosity. It explains why the syllabus long privileged Shakespeare, Milton and the English Romantics, and why the discipline carried an unexamined assumption that English literature embodied universal human values. Theory matters because it converts such assumptions into questions that can be discussed, contested and revised.

The discipline that Arnold inspired was consolidated in the twentieth century by two powerful movements that claimed to need no theory at all. In Cambridge, F. R. Leavis and the journal Scrutiny insisted that criticism was a matter of trained sensibility, of close and serious attention to the “words on the page”, and in The Great Tradition (1948) Leavis confidently ranked novelists according to their moral seriousness. In the United States, the New Criticism [a mid-twentieth-century American school that treated the poem as a self-contained verbal object] made similar claims. W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley, in their essay ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ (1946), argued that the author’s intention was neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging a poem, and that meaning resided in the public structure of the text. These movements trained generations of readers in valuable habits of attention, yet their claim to be theory-free was itself a theory. They presupposed that the text is autonomous, that value judgements are objective, and that the sensitive individual reader is the proper centre of criticism. Peter Barry, in Beginning Theory (1995), makes the essential point that there is no innocent, pre-theoretical reading; what is called common sense in criticism is simply older theory that has forgotten its own history.

Jonathan Culler offers perhaps the clearest short account of what theory is and why it matters. In Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (1997), he describes theory as a distinctive modern genre of writing, drawn from philosophy, linguistics, psychoanalysis, anthropology and history, whose works have effects beyond their original disciplines. Culler identifies four features: theory is interdisciplinary, it is analytical and speculative, it is a critique of common sense, and it is reflexive, that is, thinking about thinking (Culler, 1997, pp. 14-15). The third feature answers our question most directly. Common sense tells us that meaning is what the author intended, that language simply names a world that exists independently of it, and that the reading self is a free individual. Theory, drawing on Ferdinand de Saussure, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, shows that each of these beliefs is a historical construction. To study theory is therefore not to abandon literature for philosophy but to become conscious of the machinery of one’s own reading.

There is also a properly literary reason for theory, and the Russian Formalists [a group of early twentieth-century critics in Russia who studied the devices of literary language] stated it memorably. Viktor Shklovsky, in ‘Art as Technique’ (first published in 1917), argued that habit deadens perception and that art exists to recover the sensation of life, “to make the stone stony” (Shklovsky, 1965, p. 12). His concept of “defamiliarization” [ostranenie, the technique of making the familiar strange so that it can be perceived freshly] describes what literature does to ordinary language, but it also describes what theory does to ordinary criticism. Theory defamiliarizes reading itself. After encountering Roland Barthes or Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, a student can no longer read Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Urbervilles (1891) or Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre (1847) as innocent stories; the sexual politics of the first and the colonial subtext of the second, the madwoman Bertha Mason brought from Jamaica, become newly visible. Spivak’s essay ‘Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism’ (1985) performed exactly such a rereading of Jane Eyre, showing that the self-making of the English heroine depends on the silencing of the Creole woman. Theory, in this sense, does not kill the pleasure of literature; it multiplies the things a text can be seen to do.

Finally, theory matters because reading is entangled with power. Louis Althusser, in his essay ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’ (1971), argued that institutions such as schools and churches “interpellate” [hail or summon] individuals as subjects, giving them identities that feel natural but serve existing social relations. Literature and literary education are part of this process. Raymond Williams demonstrated in Culture and Society 1780-1950 (1958) that the very idea of literature as a separate realm of imaginative value emerged historically as a response to industrial capitalism, and Eagleton (1983) extended the point by arguing that the rise of English coincided with the need to manage new reading publics. When a syllabus in an Indian university teaches Macbeth and David Copperfield but not Bama or Mahasweta Devi, a theory of value is silently at work. The question “why literary theory” therefore has a plain answer: because without theory the politics of literature operates upon us invisibly, and with theory it becomes available for reflection, debate and change.

Understanding literary theory begins with language, because the deepest transformation that theory brought to literary study was a new account of how meaning works. Ferdinand de Saussure, in the posthumously compiled Course in General Linguistics (first published in 1916), proposed that language is a system of signs, each sign uniting a “signifier” [the sound or written mark] and a “signified” [the concept], and that the bond between them is arbitrary, sustained only by convention and by difference from other signs. There is nothing dog-like in the word “dog”; the word means what it means because it is not “log” or “fog” and because English speakers agree to use it so. The consequence is far-reaching. If meaning arises from the internal relations of a system rather than from a natural link between words and things, then language does not passively reflect reality but actively organises it. Different languages, and different discourses within a language, carve up the world differently. Literature, the most self-conscious use of language, becomes a privileged site for studying how meaning is made.

Structuralism was the movement that carried Saussure’s insight into the study of culture. Roland Barthes, in Mythologies (1957), analysed wrestling matches, advertisements, food and fashion as sign systems, showing that modern culture naturalises historical meanings, presenting the products of bourgeois society as if they were eternal common sense. Narratologists such as Vladimir Propp, whose Morphology of the Folktale (first published in 1928) reduced hundreds of Russian tales to a small set of recurring functions, and Gerard Genette, whose Narrative Discourse (first published in French in 1972) systematised categories such as order, duration and focalization [the perspective through which a narrative is presented], demonstrated that stories obey grammars in the way sentences do. For the student, structuralism teaches a valuable humility: the individual work is not a pure origin of meaning but a performance within codes and conventions that precede it.

Post-structuralism radicalised this lesson by questioning the stability of the codes themselves. Jacques Derrida, in Of Grammatology (first published in French in 1967), argued that Western thought has been governed by a “metaphysics of presence”, the desire for a final ground of meaning, and that writing reveals meaning to be endlessly deferred along chains of signifiers. His coined term “differance” [a deliberate misspelling combining the senses of differing and deferring] names this movement. His most quoted and most misunderstood sentence, “there is nothing outside of the text” (Derrida, 1976, p. 158), does not deny the existence of the world; it denies that we can reach a meaning that is free of textual mediation. Deconstruction [Derrida’s practice of reading texts to expose the points where their governing oppositions, such as speech and writing or nature and culture, undo themselves] is therefore not destruction but patient, rigorous rereading. Barbara Johnson (1980) described it as the careful teasing out of warring forces of signification within the text itself.

Two further essays completed the displacement of the author from the centre of criticism. Roland Barthes, in ‘The Death of the Author’ (first published in 1967), declared that a text is “a tissue of quotations” and that its unity lies in its destination rather than its origin, concluding that “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” (Barthes, 1977, pp. 146, 148). Michel Foucault, in ‘What Is an Author?’ (first delivered in 1969), replied that the author does not simply die but functions, historically and legally, as a principle by which societies classify, limit and control discourse. Foucault’s larger work on “discourse” [historically specific systems of statements that define what can be said and known], developed in The Archaeology of Knowledge (first published in French in 1969) and Discipline and Punish (first published in French in 1975), gave literary studies its most influential account of the relation between knowledge and power. After Foucault, criticism could ask not only what a text means but what a text does, whom it authorises to speak and whom it silences.

Around this linguistic core, understanding literary theory means recognising a family of political and psychological criticisms. Marxist criticism, from Georg Lukacs to Raymond Williams and Fredric Jameson, reads literature within the social relations of its production; Antonio Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony” [rule secured through consent and cultural leadership rather than force alone], elaborated in Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971), became indispensable to later cultural and subaltern studies. Psychoanalytic criticism, from Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams (first published in 1900) to Jacques Lacan’s rereading of Freud through Saussure, treats the text as a site of desire and repression, and gives criticism the idea that the human subject is split and constituted in language. Feminist criticism joined these currents to a political movement: Elaine Showalter’s ‘Toward a Feminist Poetics’ (1979) proposed “gynocriticism” [the study of women as writers rather than only as images in male writing], Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s The Madwoman in the Attic (1979) reread the nineteenth-century canon, and Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990) argued that gender itself is “performative” [produced through repeated acts rather than expressing a prior essence]. Postcolonial criticism, inaugurated for many readers by Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), showed that European knowledge of the East was a discourse in Foucault’s sense, a system of representation entangled with imperial power, while Homi Bhabha’s The Location of Culture (1994) introduced “hybridity” and “mimicry” as names for the unstable, mixed identities that colonialism produces against its own intentions.

It is tempting to understand this catalogue as a toolbox, and many introductory courses encourage students to “apply” feminism to one text and Marxism to another. Stuart Hall offered a wiser image. Reflecting on his own encounter with structuralism and Marxism, he wrote that “the only theory worth having is that which you have to fight off, not that which you speak with profound fluency” (Hall, 1992, p. 280). Understanding literary theory is not fluency in jargon but a continuing struggle, what Hall called wrestling with the angels, in which the reader tests concepts against texts and texts against concepts, and allows both to be changed. Theory understood in this way is less a set of doctrines than a discipline of self-awareness, and it is precisely this discipline that passed into the three fields to which this essay now turns.

Cultural studies is the first great institutional offspring of theory, and in Britain it grew from a scholarship-boy generation’s reflection on class and culture. Richard Hoggart’s The Uses of Literacy (1957) applied Leavisite close reading, with affection and anxiety, to working-class magazines, songs and neighbourhood life in northern England. Raymond Williams, in Culture and Society 1780-1950 (1958) and The Long Revolution (1961), redefined culture as “a whole way of life” rather than a treasury of masterpieces, and in his essay ‘Culture Is Ordinary’ (first published in 1958) he stated the founding principle of the field: “Culture is ordinary: that is the first fact” (Williams, 1989, p. 4). E. P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (1963) recovered the agency of labouring people in their own history. When Hoggart founded the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham in 1964, and Stuart Hall became its director in 1968, these native traditions met imported theory, Althusser, Gramsci, Barthes and later Foucault, and produced a new object of study: the whole field of signifying practices, from television news to street fashion.

Hall’s essay ‘Encoding/Decoding’ (first circulated in 1973 and published in 1980) can stand as the emblem of what cultural studies did with literary theory. Treating a television programme as a text, Hall argued that meaning is encoded within professional and ideological frameworks but is not guaranteed at the point of reception; audiences may produce “dominant”, “negotiated” or “oppositional” readings (Hall, 1980). The essay transferred the theoretical lesson of Barthes and Saussure, that meaning is constructed and contested, from the poem to popular culture, and it dignified the ordinary viewer as an active maker of meaning. Later Birmingham work extended the method: Dick Hebdige’s Subculture: The Meaning of Style (1979) read punk clothing as semiotic resistance, the collectively written Policing the Crisis (Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke and Roberts, 1978) analysed the moral panic around “mugging” as a racialised crisis of the British state, and Paul Gilroy’s There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack (1987) placed race and diaspora at the centre of the study of British culture.

For literary studies, the consequences of cultural studies were double. Negatively, it dissolved the privilege of the literary text; a Bombay film poster, a cricket commentary or a WhatsApp forward became as legitimate an object of analysis as a sonnet. Positively, it returned literature to the world, insisting that novels and poems live within circuits of production, distribution and consumption, and that readers belong to classes, genders, races and castes. In India, cultural studies enabled scholars to study popular cinema, calendar art, food cultures and oral performance with the same seriousness once reserved for canonical texts, and it gave theoretical support to the study of vernacular and Dalit literatures that the Arnoldian canon had excluded. Cultural studies is thus one convincing answer to the question “why literary theory”: theory made it possible to ask what culture is, who makes it, and in whose interest it circulates.

Subaltern studies is the second field in which theory found a new life, and it began not in literature departments but in the writing of South Asian history. The word “subaltern” [literally, of inferior rank] was taken from Antonio Gramsci, who used it in his prison notebooks to name social groups subjected to the hegemony of ruling classes and denied access to the institutions in which history is written. Ranajit Guha and a collective of historians launched the Subaltern Studies series in 1982 with a polemical statement of purpose. In his opening essay, ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India’, Guha declared that “the historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism, colonialist elitism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism” (Guha, 1982, p. 1). Both schools, he argued, wrote the nation’s history as the achievement of elites, whether British administrators or Indian nationalist leaders, and thereby ignored “the politics of the people”, the autonomous domain in which peasants, tribals and workers acted on their own understandings.

The project had a profoundly literary dimension from the beginning, because the subaltern past survives mainly in hostile documents: police reports, judicial proceedings, revenue records and counter-insurgency files. In Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983), Guha read these documents “against the grain”, treating the prose of counter-insurgency as a text whose distortions, when carefully decoded, reveal the consciousness of the rebels it condemns. This is literary theory in action: the archive is approached as Barthes or Derrida would approach a text, with attention to gaps, tropes and silences rather than to surface statement. The historian, like the deconstructive critic, learns that no document is transparent and that reading is always an act of interpretation performed within relations of power.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak brought subaltern studies and post-structuralist theory into their most famous and most difficult encounter. In ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ (1988), she examined the British abolition of widow immolation [sati] in colonial India and found the subaltern woman caught between two scripts: the colonial narrative that she summarised as “White men are saving brown women from brown men” and the nativist claim that “the women actually wanted to die” (Spivak, 1988, pp. 296-297). Between imperialism and patriarchy, the woman’s own voice cannot be recovered; every attempt to represent her speaks over her. Spivak distinguished two senses of representation, “Vertretung” [speaking for, as in politics] and “Darstellung” [portraying, as in art], and warned that intellectuals who claim merely to let the oppressed speak conceal their own mediating role. Her stark conclusion, “the subaltern cannot speak” (Spivak, 1988, p. 308), is not a claim that oppressed people are silent, but that the structures of representation prevent their speech from being heard as speech. The essay permanently changed literary criticism, making questions of voice, silence and the ethics of representation central to the reading of any text about the dispossessed, and Spivak’s own translations of Mahasweta Devi’s fiction, collected in Imaginary Maps (1995), modelled a practice of translation accompanied by theoretical self-questioning.

Dipesh Chakrabarty carried the subalternist critique into the philosophy of history. In Provincializing Europe (2000), he observed that “Europe” functions as the silent referent of all historical knowledge, so that Indian, Chinese or Kenyan histories are read as variations on a European master narrative of modernity, while European history is never required to explain itself by reference to anyone else. As he wrote, insofar as the academic discourse of history is concerned, “‘Europe’ remains the sovereign, theoretical subject of all histories” (Chakrabarty, 2000, p. 27). To “provincialize” Europe is not to reject European thought, which Chakrabarty calls both indispensable and inadequate, but to renew it from the margins, holding universal categories such as capital and citizenship in tension with the plural life-worlds that he calls “History 2”. For literary studies in India, subaltern studies thus supplied both a method, reading against the grain, and a politics of knowledge, the refusal to treat European theory as universal while still thinking with it. It is a second convincing answer to “why literary theory”: theory gave historians and critics the instruments to hear, or at least to mark the silencing of, those whom official narratives had erased.

Posthumanism is the third afterlife of theory, and it extends theory’s critique of the sovereign subject beyond the human species itself. Classical literary humanism assumed a universal “Man”, rational, autonomous and central to the order of things, and much theory from Saussure to Foucault was already anti-humanist in the sense that it showed this subject to be an effect of language, ideology and discourse. Foucault ended The Order of Things (first published in French in 1966) with the celebrated image of man being erased “like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea”. Posthumanism radicalises this insight under new historical pressures: cybernetics and artificial intelligence, biotechnology, animal studies and the planetary environmental crisis. It asks what literature and criticism look like when the human is no longer the measure of all things.

Donna Haraway gave the movement its founding myth. In ‘A Cyborg Manifesto’ (first published in 1985), she defined the cyborg as “a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction” (Haraway, 1991, p. 149), and used the figure to break down three boundaries that humanism had policed: between human and animal, between organism and machine, and between the physical and the non-physical. Refusing both technophobia and nostalgia for a pure nature, she closed the essay with the provocation “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess” (Haraway, 1991, p. 181). Her later work, notably When Species Meet (2008), turned to “companion species” and the entangled histories of humans and dogs, insisting that we become who we are only in relation with other creatures.

N. Katherine Hayles supplied the movement’s critical history of technology. In How We Became Posthuman (1999), she traced how post-war cybernetics [the science of communication and control in animals and machines] came to treat information as if it were disembodied, a pattern separable from any material substrate, a fantasy that culminates in dreams of uploading consciousness into computers. Against this, Hayles defended embodiment, arguing that human thought is inseparable from its flesh, while accepting that the liberal humanist subject was always a construction. Her closing sentence captures the doubleness of the field: “we have always been posthuman” (Hayles, 1999, p. 291), because the bounded, autonomous self that humanism celebrated never actually existed. Cary Wolfe, in What Is Posthumanism? (2010), sharpened the conceptual point by distinguishing posthumanism from “transhumanism” [the technological project of enhancing and eventually transcending the human], which he regards as an intensification of humanism. For Wolfe, posthumanism “comes both before and after humanism” (Wolfe, 2010, p. xv): before, because humans have always co-evolved with animals, tools and languages; after, because it names the historical moment when the humanist framework can no longer be sustained. Rosi Braidotti, in The Posthuman (2013), gave the field its most affirmative statement, opening with the observation that “Not all of us can say, with any degree of certainty, that we have always been human, or that we are only that” (Braidotti, 2013, p. 1). Braidotti reminds us that women, colonised peoples, Dalits and the enslaved were never fully admitted to the category “Man”, and she proposes “zoe” [the generative vitality of life itself, beyond the privileged human “bios”] as the ground of a new, non-hierarchical ethics.

Posthumanism converges with subaltern studies in the environmental humanities, and Dipesh Chakrabarty is again the pivotal figure. In his essay ‘The Climate of History: Four Theses’ (2009), he argued that anthropogenic climate change “spells the collapse of the age-old humanist distinction between natural history and human history” (Chakrabarty, 2009, p. 201), because human beings have become a geological force in the epoch now widely called the “Anthropocene” [the proposed geological age defined by human impact on the Earth system]. The historian of subaltern lives thus found himself compelled to think at the scale of the species and the planet, a scale at which the categories of postcolonial critique, capital, empire, nation, remain necessary but insufficient. For literary criticism, this convergence has been immensely productive. Amitav Ghosh, in The Great Derangement (2016), asked why the modern realist novel has found climate change so hard to imagine, and ecocritics now read texts for the agency of rivers, forests, animals and weather rather than only for human character and motive. In the Indian context, scholars have begun to connect caste and ecology, showing that access to land, water and animals is organised by caste power, so that any posthumanism that ignores such hierarchies risks universalising, once again, a privileged human subject. Posthumanism is therefore a third answer to “why literary theory”: theory’s questioning of the subject made it possible to ask who, and what, had been excluded from the human in the first place.

The phrase “after theory” entered common academic speech at the turn of the millennium, and it named a genuine change of mood. The heroic generation of theorists was passing: Barthes died in 1980, Lacan in 1981, Foucault in 1984, Louis Althusser in 1990, Derrida in 2004, and with them went the sense that each new season would bring a revolutionary paradigm. Terry Eagleton, who had done more than anyone to popularise theory in the English-speaking world, opened After Theory (2003) with a sentence that seemed to close an era: “The golden age of cultural theory is long past” (Eagleton, 2003, p. 1). Yet the book’s argument is easily misread. Eagleton did not announce that theory was finished or that criticism could return to an innocent enjoyment of literature. He insisted that there is no going back, because the gains of theory, the awareness of language, ideology, gender and power, are irreversible. His complaint was rather that theory, in its postmodern phase, had grown politically timid and morally evasive, endlessly sophisticated about desire and the body but embarrassed by questions of truth, virtue, love, death, suffering and religion. Writing in the shadow of the attacks of 11 September 2001, he argued that a Western theory which had abandoned the very language of truth and objectivity was poorly equipped to confront fundamentalism or global capitalism, and he called for theory to become more ambitious, not less.

Other versions of “after theory” pulled in different directions. Valentine Cunningham, in Reading After Theory (2002), granted that theory had permanently enlarged criticism but accused it of arrogance towards the text, of reading through texts to confirm prior positions, and he pleaded for the restoration of “tact”, the patient, loving attention that lets the text resist and surprise the reader. The collection Post-Theory: New Directions in Criticism (McQuillan, Macdonald, Purves and Thomson, 1999) had already suggested that “post-theory” could only be another moment within theory, since the announcement of theory’s end is itself a theoretical claim. This paradox is worth pausing over. Just as postmodernism did not abolish the modern and postcolonialism did not abolish the colonial, “after theory” does not name a time without theory but a time when theory has become atmosphere rather than event, dispersed into the ordinary practices of reading, teaching and research. Nobody now needs to declare allegiance to structuralism in order to speak of codes, or to deconstruction in order to notice a text undoing its own oppositions; the vocabulary has become the common property of the discipline.

The most searching self-criticism of theory in this period concerned its dominant mood, which was suspicion. Paul Ricoeur, in Freud and Philosophy (1970), had described Marx, Nietzsche and Freud as masters of a “hermeneutics of suspicion” [a style of interpretation that distrusts surface meaning and seeks a concealed truth beneath it], and much theoretical criticism institutionalised exactly this style: the critic unmasks, demystifies, exposes. Bruno Latour, in his essay ‘Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?’ (2004), worried that the gesture of unmasking had become mechanical and had even been borrowed by conspiracy theorists and climate-change deniers, and he proposed that scholarship turn from “matters of fact” to “matters of concern”, from debunking to assembling and caring. Rita Felski, in The Limits of Critique (2015), gathered these doubts into a programme that has come to be called “postcritique”. Drawing on Ricoeur’s contrasting idea of a hermeneutics of trust and on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s earlier distinction between “paranoid” and “reparative” reading in Touching Feeling (2003), Felski argued that suspicion is one critical mood among many, and that criticism should also be able to describe attachment, enchantment, recognition and use, the ways texts actually matter to readers. Postcritique does not reject theory; it asks theory to become curious about the positive relations between texts and readers that the rhetoric of unmasking had made invisible.

Seen from this vantage, the three fields discussed in this essay are not casualties of theory’s end but its living heirs, and each represents one way of being “after theory” in the constructive sense. Cultural studies took theory’s account of signification and carried it out of the seminar room into the study of media, everyday life and popular pleasure; when Stuart Hall described theoretical work as a detour on the way to something more important, the analysis of the political present, he was already practising theory as a means rather than an end. Subaltern studies took theory’s suspicion of representation and turned it into an ethics of listening, a discipline of marking the silences of the archive; Spivak’s insistence that the critic acknowledge her own complicity is theory turned reflexively upon the theorist. Posthumanism took theory’s deconstruction of the subject and expanded it to the species boundary and the planetary scale, joining hands with the environmental humanities at the very moment when climate change made the old separation of nature and culture untenable. In each case, what survives of theory is not a doctrine but a habit of mind: the refusal to treat any category, literature, culture, the people, the human, as natural or self-evident.

It is therefore possible to end where we began, with the student opening a book. Why literary theory? Because the book, the syllabus, the language and the reader are all historical creations, and only theory allows us to see the making. What is understanding literary theory? Not the fluent recitation of “-isms” but the patient, sometimes uncomfortable practice of testing our reading habits against the best available accounts of language, power and subjectivity, wrestling with the angels rather than reciting their names. And what comes after theory? Not innocence, which is unavailable, and not exhaustion, which is only a mood, but the quieter, more distributed work that this essay has traced through cultural studies, subaltern studies and posthumanism: attending to ordinary culture without condescension, listening for subaltern voices without pretending to ventriloquise them, and learning to read a warming planet on which the human is one fragile participant among many. Eagleton was right that the golden age of theory is past, but golden ages are always retrospective inventions. The real justification of literary theory was never its glamour. It was, and remains, the modest and demanding one that Culler identified: to make thought reflexive, so that those who read literature also understand what reading is, who they are when they read, and what their reading does in the world.

References

Althusser, L. (1971). ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation)’. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (B. Brewster, Trans., pp. 127-186). Monthly Review Press.

Arnold, M. (1869). Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism. Smith, Elder and Co.

Baldick, C. (1983). The Social Mission of English Criticism 1848-1932. Clarendon Press.

Barry, P. (1995). Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester University Press.

Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Editions du Seuil.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image-Music-Text (S. Heath, Trans.). Fontana Press.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. Routledge.

Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Polity Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.

Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton University Press.

Chakrabarty, D. (2009). ‘The Climate of History: Four Theses’. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197-222.

Culler, J. (1997). Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Cunningham, V. (2002). Reading After Theory. Blackwell.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell.

Eagleton, T. (2003). After Theory. Allen Lane.

Felski, R. (2015). The Limits of Critique. University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Tavistock.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Tavistock.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Allen Lane.

Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (J. E. Lewin, Trans.). Cornell University Press.

Ghosh, A. (2016). The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable. University of Chicago Press.

Gilbert, S. M., & Gubar, S. (1979). The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale University Press.

Gilroy, P. (1987). There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation. Hutchinson.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds. & Trans.). Lawrence and Wishart.

Guha, R. (1982). ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India’. In R. Guha (Ed.), Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian History and Society (pp. 1-8). Oxford University Press.

Guha, R. (1983). Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. Oxford University Press.

Hall, S. (1980). ‘Encoding/Decoding’. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, Media, Language (pp. 128-138). Hutchinson.

Hall, S. (1992). ‘Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies’. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 277-294). Routledge.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. Macmillan.

Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge.

Haraway, D. J. (2008). When Species Meet. University of Minnesota Press.

Hayles, N. K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press.

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Methuen.

Hoggart, R. (1957). The Uses of Literacy: Aspects of Working-Class Life. Chatto and Windus.

Johnson, B. (1980). The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Latour, B. (2004). ‘Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225-248.

Leavis, F. R. (1948). The Great Tradition. Chatto and Windus.

McQuillan, M., Macdonald, G., Purves, R., & Thomson, S. (Eds.). (1999). Post-Theory: New Directions in Criticism. Edinburgh University Press.

Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the Folktale (L. Scott, Trans., 2nd ed.). University of Texas Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (D. Savage, Trans.). Yale University Press.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

Saussure, F. de. (1959). Course in General Linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Philosophical Library.

Sedgwick, E. K. (2003). Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Duke University Press.

Shklovsky, V. (1965). ‘Art as Technique’. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. & Trans.), Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (pp. 3-24). University of Nebraska Press.

Showalter, E. (1979). ‘Toward a Feminist Poetics’. In M. Jacobus (Ed.), Women Writing and Writing about Women (pp. 22-41). Croom Helm.

Spivak, G. C. (1985). ‘Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism’. Critical Inquiry, 12(1), 243-261.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’. In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 271-313). University of Illinois Press.

Spivak, G. C. (Trans.). (1995). Imaginary Maps: Three Stories by Mahasweta Devi. Routledge.

Thompson, E. P. (1963). The Making of the English Working Class. Victor Gollancz.

Viswanathan, G. (1989). Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India. Columbia University Press.

Williams, R. (1958). Culture and Society 1780-1950. Chatto and Windus.

Williams, R. (1961). The Long Revolution. Chatto and Windus.

Williams, R. (1989). ‘Culture Is Ordinary’. In R. Gable (Ed.), Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism (pp. 3-18). Verso.

Wimsatt, W. K., & Beardsley, M. C. (1946). ‘The Intentional Fallacy’. The Sewanee Review, 54(3), 468-488.

Wolfe, C. (2010). What Is Posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press.