The New Norton and Literary Theory

To start with, perhaps we should address something that puzzles some people who haven't been around literature departments; namely, "What are we talking about, when we talk about 'theory'?"

For example, if we look at literature, we discover the ancient Greeks discussing the nature of literature and how best to use literature. Down through history, we've been wrestling with the quesiton what it literature, and how do we make use of it?

When I talk to non-theorist colleagues, as opposed to the general public, I tell them that in my mind, theory has gone through several definitions. For the people during the pre- WWII period, theory was basically poetics and aesthetics. For people after the second World War, theory included not only poetics and aesthetics, but also hermeneutics ("critical approaches") and rhetoric. For people since the 1970s, theory has included not only poetics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and rhetoric, but also semiotics; popular culture and visual theory; media and discourse theory; gender and queer theory; and race and ethnicity theory. More recently, in the 1980s and up to the present, "theory" has witnessed a "crossover" phenomenon where we encounter many texts that mix, for instance, marxism, feminism, deconstructionism, and post-colonial studies.

Another way to define theory is as a mode of questioning, specifically, a skepticism toward systems, institutions, norms; a readiness to take stands and engage in resistance; an interest in blind spots, contradictions, and distortions; and a habit of linking local and personal practices to larger economic, historical, political, and ethical forces of culture.

We have a 200-page instructor's manual and a detailed alternative table of contents which lay out a wide range of possible courses, traditional and innovative. So I do expect that the anthology will prompt new courses beyond the standard ones regularly taught.

There are many text books available, such as the "Case Studies In Contemporary Criticism," edited by Ross Murfin, which offer in the case of "Heart of Darkness," for instance, five different critical readings of the novel, while including the novel in the volume. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism is not designed to compete with all such case studies.

But the premise of your question deserves comment. If one looks at the selections in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism by Aristotle and Plato, Longinus and Horace, one finds them talking about Homer. That is, within the theoretical texts themselves, there are literary commentaries and close readings. To elaborate, in the Norton Anthology, we have Macrobius reading Cicero; Johnson and Dryden on Shakespeare; Wollstonecraft on Milton; Freud on Oedipus; Derrida on Plato; and Todorov on Boccaccio; P. G. Allen on Keres Tale; Barbara Smith on Toni Morrison; Barbara Johnson on Melville; Heidegger on Trakl; and there are other examples of close reading or practical criticism.

Another factor here involves the instructor carefully reading the selections that he or she is considering as course material. In the anthology, there are many texts that are accessible to beginning students, and some that are more advanced.

Literary theory seems to me an altogether different enterprise--or, rather, enterprises--with altogether different purposes.  For example, to place literary works into a broader historical context, or to analyse them as reflections of power politics, or to criticize or praise their political and social effects.

Perhaps the only reason literary theory of these types is ever referred to as criticism is that it is typically engaged in by professors of literature whose job was once deemed to be the writing of criticism.  They wanted to do something different from what they were paid to do, so they did the other thing but called it by the original name.

Vincent Leitch:
    I take this to be a statement, not a question, but it does raise some interesting issues. Let's recall that the definition of literature, which before the enlightenment used to mean all texts, has been progressively narrowed during the period of belletrism characteristic of the modern age. Within this ever-narrowing definition of literature, the practice of practical criticism was both codified and named by the Anglo-American formalists. By the time we get to World War II, literary criticism has been reduced to mainly the close reading of individual texts. By the time we get to the post-Vietnam period, in reaction, literary criticism expands out to include not just individual texts, but also a wide range of cultural discourses. So we go from a moment of contraction to a moment of expansion.

But let's not forget that criticism during, for example, classical Greek times, or European renaissance times, was not limited to close reading of individual texts, but tended to look very much like the theory that we have today, exploring a diverse array of cultural questions. Plato's "Republic" would be an example.

1. This is an anthology of consent: there is no text that in any substantive way questions the assumptions of the mainstream theory printed here. For an anthology which is almost exclusively PEDAGOGICAL this is odd. Pedagogy is (even according to the same mainstream academy from which these theory texts are drawn) a process of contestation and debate. Where are the contesting texts here? I don't mean staged "family quarrels" between, let's say a "poststructuralist" and a "feminist". I mean contesting texts that raise issues about the similarity of their founding concepts (in spite of their professed differences) and their complicity in ruling structures of power and exploitation.

2. This hegemonic consensus has more or less wiped out all radical texts--I don't mean Derrida-radical, I mean Marx-Lenin-radical. Students who read this anthology will believe that neoliberalism is ruling the world--there is no text here that questions the neoliberal views that underlies the recent texts of theory published here. The token, supposedly contesting, texts are by Jameson and Co., who are in fact "Co." to global capitalism.

So, why a new anthology when its only difference from other anthologies is that it is more thoroughly commodified, with huge advertising investments etc., bigger and more expensive? What is the "reason" for this anthology other than making money for the publisher and career advancement for the editors?

Among other contesting texts, perhaps not directly in the Marxist tradition, are, off the top of my head: Adrienne Rich, Deleuze and Guattari, Achebe, Stuart Hall, Said, Paula Gunn Allen, Gloria Anzaldua, and Judith Butler.

Regarding the motivation of the editors, I can only speak for myself. It seems to me that theory has gone through four different stages in the contemporary period: rise of theory; high theory; posttheory; and consolidation. The moments of posttheory and consolidation which we're presently living through involve the significant impact of new social movements on criticism and theory, and the development of cultural studies. Among the new social movements, most prominent are feminism, African-American studies and other ethnic studies, and queer theory. None of these new social movements seem to me to be simply in line with the hegemonic order. They are all contestatory in one way or another. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism has been put together from the point of view of the expansion of theory following upon the new social movements and culturals studies. The way I see it, this explains why 60 percent of the selections from figures born after 1934 are women, eight African-Americans are included, and five representatives of lesbigay and queer theory are included.

Of course, this does not take into account the crossover phenomenon discussed earlier. There are many examples of theorists and critics using psychological terms and concepts as part of other different projects. Let me mention two. Edward Said construes orientalism as manifest and latent, borrowing this powerful concept from Freud. Susan Bordo, known for her work in body studies, offers a powerful critique of anorexia nervosa in her selection in the anthology.

The role of the comprehensive theory anthology has shifted in the current climate. This explains in part why we have such a broad representation from medieval criticism and theory, and why we have many surprise selections from well-known figures. Theory looks different from the perspective of the 21st Century, which means that the texts being taught and the questions being raised are undergoing a reconfiguration. I believe that The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism reflects this moment of transition.

Of course, the instructor's manual, the individual head notes, the Introduction, and the bibliography at the end of the volume are designed to help students understand the current state of theory. This bibliography, which is divided into six parts, is the most comprehensive and up-to-date one in the field, and will be a valuable resource for students and teachers.