THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 Violating Pedagogy: Literary Theory in the Twenty-first Century College Classroom Heather GS Johnson Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Undergraduate and graduate students in the field of English Studies often know, from students who have gone before or from previous experience, that the usually-required course on literary theory is likely to be one of the hardest they will take. While some will look forward to the challenge, others will approach the course with dread. Such a course is also one of the most difficult to teach, posing a whole series of problems that require inventive solutions. Both teacher and student are likely to find the course mentally taxing, but the potential for payoff is massive; the depth and quality of thinking that emerges out of class discussion can be astonishing. And delightfully invigorating. And sometimes just plain fun. But it takes time, effort, and to put it bluntly, a bit of pain to get to those moments. To make the literary theory course worthwhile, the teacher and students have to willingly practice a pedagogy of intellectual violation, one that gently but deliberately undermines core beliefs, firmly held ideological stances, and common-sense assumptions about who we are and what we do. One way to www.cea-web.org 37 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 approach the literary theory course is to embrace theoretical opportunism, a stance which deliberately rejects any theoretical school’s claim to dominance or “rightness.” When teaching the graduate version of my course, I willingly admit to my students that one function of the study of theory is induction into the literary studies community. Every scholarly group has its own language, and that language is used for more than mere communication. The ability to use field-specific jargon is a badge of belonging, and speaking the code fluently is a way of signaling one’s expertise and authority. In advanced academic circles, knowing some theory is required if one wishes to walk the walk and talk the talk.1 In a field that is actually quite fragmented, where members of the same department or attendees of the same conference might study very different topics, literary theory is one place of significant overlap. A specialist in American Southern Regional Literature might read very different materials and know very different authors than a British Medievalist, African American Literature specialist or a Romanticist, but all four are likely to have read Derrida, Butler, Freud, and Fanon in the course of their studies. Because theory is notoriously difficult, it also functions as a mark of distinction. The writer or speaker who can reference theoretical ideas with confidence and accuracy is marked as an expert and accorded at least a measure of respect.2 But I maintain—vociferously—that institutional belonging is only one minor benefit of studying literary theory in the 21st century. www.cea-web.org 38 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 More importantly, reading and “doing” theory helps one to discover new ideas, ask new questions (and old ones in fresh ways), confront difficult and sometimes painful complexities, and locate or create meaning that is intellectually and emotionally satisfying. Theoretical engagement has the potential to engender a new kind of critical conscious that reshapes our vision, not just of literature and culture, but of the whole human-made world in which we live. Furthermore, literary theory can help us to clarify our roles as analysts of culture; it gives us purpose and direction. The paragraph above might seem to have painted literary theory as all sweetness and light, a balm for the troubled analyst’s soul and solution to the confusions and incoherencies that naturally arise around any complex use of language. Certainly, theory can ground reading practices, giving them weight and direction, but the process is not easy and often anything but “sweet.” The fact is this: a reader’s early experiences with literary theory are often extremely painful and can create confusion instead of resolving it. Literary theory hurts. This is the disturbing core of my argument: the pain is part of why literary theory is worth teaching. Such an idea might be hard for many teachers to accept, especially for those of us who entered the profession because we are genuinely sympathetic individuals who understand education as the delicate process of nurturing the growth of intellectually vulnerable learners. We care deeply about our charges, and it seems emotionally counterintuitive to turn around and reward student www.cea-web.org 39 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 trust by inflicting pain upon them. There are times when, as a teacher of literary theory, I feel an impulse to apologize to my students for leading them into the intellectual minefield. It’s a minefield that has changed in interesting ways since the heyday of “high theory.” Many literary theory textbooks still arrange theoretical works into schools that conform to the borders established in the late 20th century—with varying degrees of coherence. Courses, likewise, are frequently designed around the investigation of a number of such schools. There might be units on “Structuralism” or “New Historicism” or “Psychoanalytic Theory.” I begin the project of disrupting standard conventions by violating the borders between theoretical schools, creating a syllabus that ignores obvious affiliations in favor of an organization based on topics of inquiry. (I am hardly unique in this—see discussion below.) Because while these designations might be generally handy (and I do introduce my students to the terms used to indicate lineages of thought), they can also be misleading. Some theorists straddle multiple borders, and to place them in a single theoretical “box” can only lead to misunderstanding. Furthermore, in the 21st century more and more literary critics are combining theoretical perspectives in their work. On a purely experiential level, I’ve met fewer and fewer scholars who are dyed-in-the-wool devotees of any particular school. The combativeness and territorialism that was common in theoretical discussions of the 1980s seems to be disappearing.3 Vincent Leitch, in his recent Literary Criticism in the 21st Century, also recognizes the border-straddling that is now far more www.cea-web.org 40 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 common, citing Spivak as an early example: “The modes and conventions of academic critical reading have proliferated during the contemporary period, prompting continuous fusions and flexibilizations. An early pioneering illustration of such eclecticism would be Marxist feminist deconstructive postcolonial cultural criticism—the kind of blended critical approach associated since the 1970s with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak” (33). And he sees staunch adherence to a particular, narrow approach as a kind of willful blindness. In the interests of pragmatism, flexibility, and broad scope, I advocate open-ended critical fusions. I am against reductionist programs for criticism such as formalist close reading only, exclusive art-for-art’s sake aestheticism, selfless spiritualized phenomenology of unreading, or reader-centered existential phenomenology stripped of critique. They constitute throwbacks to modernist avant-gardism and fantasies of revitalized autonomy in an era when economics and politics enabled by media continue to seep into and reconfigure spheres of life. Count me out on such nostalgic and defensive campaigns for purification. (49) Leitch’s collection, The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, which he co-edits with a group of fellow scholars and which I use in the graduate version of my course, reflects his feeling that purification is reactionary and ultimately impossible. The texts included are primarily arranged simply, in chronological order. The book also includes several alternative www.cea-web.org 41 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 tables of contents, only one of which groups texts into “schools and movements” – the others divide along lines of historical period, genre, and topic. Like others of my generation, I don’t feel particularly tied—and not the slightest bit loyal—to any given theoretical school (though there are certainly some that appeal to me more than others). Leitch’s assertions about critical fusion and flexibility are commonsensical to me: I use various theories as lenses when they are helpful or instructive. I refer to this attitude as theoretical opportunism, and it is one that I encourage my students to adopt.4 Most of my readers will recognize this attitude immediately; they either are themselves theoretical opportunists or have had conversations with one. It would be easy to underestimate the profundity of the shift; in truth it represents a sea-change in the way we think about literature and literary theory. To be a theoretical opportunist is to already to have adopted a postmodern attitude; to be a theoretical opportunist means to accept a multiplicity of constantly changing interpretations, to not insist on a particular perspective (or particular combination of perspectives) as inherently right or proper and to distrust any single grand narrative capable of systematically explaining “Literature” or “Culture.” According to some, this might even mean that we aren’t really “doing” literary study in any proper sense. Considering early formalists and their legacies, Jonathan Culler explains that [Tynianov’s] paradoxical insight insists that we have two levels of systematicity: on the one hand, the individual work can be treated as a system and the function www.cea-web.org 42 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 of various elements within this system analyzed; but this is not sufficient for unrelated to the work of art as autotelic whole there is, on the other hand, the system of literary possibilities, which is quite a different matter. Proper literary study involves this second level of systematicity, poetics. (8) To be a theoretical opportunist is not to outright reject larger levels of systematicity like that studied by poetics, but does involve putting such levels in the background in favor of pursuing more varied, pointed, idiosyncratic questions.5 Rather than decrease political and scholarly engagement, the approach may actually lead to a more profound dedication to certain ideas or stances that nevertheless draw from multiple sources. Most of my graduate students tend toward theoretical opportunism, even if they identify a particular lens as primary to their studies or as a means of self-identification. With a few exceptions, undergraduates are also willing to abandon the notion that there must be one “right approach” to a text. Even those students who initially approach works looking for a single “correct” interpretation that perfectly matches some mysteriously intuited authorial intention usually make the transition to a more open attitude eventually. Choices about theoretical lenses become matters of preference and expedience; students make the choice of what theoretical lens to use in relation to a particular text or phenomenon in much the same way that they choose their majors (it’s a matter of investment, interest and utility, rather than correctness or propriety). www.cea-web.org 43 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 On a practical level, teaching theory from an opportunistic perspective leads to some changes in course design and daily pedagogy. Rather than follow the standard route of studying theoretical schools discretely, one after the other, I instead organize my courses around a series of terms that seem central to a number of different theoretical perspectives or to the field generally.6 For each central concept or term, we read several theoretical texts as well as a small number of short primary texts, each of which seem to “speak to” the concept in some way. We may, therefore, read works by feminists, poststructuralists, semioticians, and new critics all in the same unit or even class period (for graduate versions of the course, the class meets once a week for three hours, so a large amount of material must be covered in each class period). For a recent graduate course, the terms covered included, among others “aesthetics/beauty,” “text/ textuality,” “structure,” “gender,” and “race” (to name just a few). For a class period entitled “Authors, Writers, and Scriptors,” students read Emerson’s “The Poet,” Barthes’ “The Death of the Author,” Foucault’s “What is an Author?” and an excerpt from Derrida’s “Plato’s Pharmacy.”7 Each set of thematically linked theoretical texts is accompanied by one or two primary texts that we use to test out our newly-discovered questions and concepts. In the case of the “Author” class period described above, students were assigned to read Joel Chandler Harris’ highly problematic introduction to the Uncle Remus stories (“Uncle Remus Initiates the Little Boy”) and Alice Walker’s reflections on his use of African tales (“The Dummy in the Window”). www.cea-web.org 44 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 The goal of all this sampling is to explode terms and multiply questions. We take what seems at first to be a relatively “simple” term, like author or gender and think through the ways in which theory helps us to understand the depth of complexity implied by it. The key is to move so far beyond bare definition that simply encountering the term in question instantly evokes a series of possibilities; the terms become almost impossibly rich. I use the word “explode” very much on purpose; it is meant to indicate a concussive intellectual detonation in which assumptions and standard meanings are reduced to fragments and bits which must then be reconstituted into intelligibility (but never remade into simple forms). Far from presenting each of the terms as existing as the center of an easy constellation of ideas and issues, I attempt to choose readings that will create conflict and dissonance (or at the very least, not fully compatible perspectives). The purpose of the class period is to explore the fragments left behind after the explosion, determining how they may be used or interrogated. The statements made by our readings are always understood as proposals rather than facts (in essence, I am asking students to exercise what Keats called “negative capability”). Figures 1 and 2 are examples of exploded terms and multiplied questions that were originally developed (for the most part) together in the graduate class, each within the space of a single class period (in each case, I wrote up our findings and distributed them to the class later, as a review and survey of where we’d been and where we were going). Each “term” explored in the course gets a similar treatment, www.cea-web.org 45 THE CEA FORUM Summer/ Fall 2015 though each semester’s results are somewhat different in form and content. The figures included here are an amalgamation of several semesters’ worth of exploration. The undergraduate version of the class deals with many of the same issues, but on a smaller scale, covering less material for each key term. At the center of each figure is the primary term with which the class was concerned. Ranged around that term is a series of proposals set forward by our theorists of the day (some of them by multiple theorists, as proposals become generally accepted premises); some of these will necessarily be in contradiction to one another (or in contradiction to common sense notions). Some of the proposals generate fairly hot debate among students (the proposal that gender is purely performative, for example), while others seem unobjectionable (like gender being inflected by race and class). Questions generated by interactions with the theoretical texts are listed at the bottom of the figure. Some of the texts we discuss attempt to answer the questions they raise, to differing degrees of satisfaction, but our in-class practice is to treat all of these questions as essentially “open.” While we may each find “answers” to which we at least partially subscribe, we understand that they are contingent, partial, and subject to further refinement. This, in itself, can feel like a violation of the pedagogical project, especially for younger students. If they come to a literary theory course hoping to find new ways of exploring and alternative reading practices, they’ll be well satisfied. If they come looking for final answers www.cea-web.org 46