Literary and Critical Theory最新文献

{"title":"Emmanuel Levinas","authors":"Claire Katz","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0099","url":null,"abstract":"Emmanuel Levinas (b. 1906–d. 1995) was a French-Jewish thinker known primarily as the philosopher of the ‘other.’ He studied with Husserl and Heidegger in the 1920s. He introduced phenomenology to France through his translation of Husserl’s Cartesian Meditations into French, and he developed a lifelong friendship with Maurice Blanchot. Prior to the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, Levinas’s philosophical work focused on Husserlian phenomenology. His thought took a dramatic turn in the mid-1930s when he focused on the philosophical threat of Nazism. He spent 1940–1945 in a German POW camp. Returning to Paris after the war, he immediately went back to work for the Alliance Israélite Universelle (AIU), where he became director of the École Normale Israélite Orientale (Enio), the Jewish day school. He resumed working on his question from the 1930s—the philosophical problem of identity and transcendence—with an added urgency in the wake of World War II. From 1946 until his death in 1995, Levinas’s ethical project searched for a way to address this philosophical problem of escape, developing a view of the self as an ethical subject that allows one to transcend the self without leaving the body behind. From the 1940s to the early 1960s, he developed the first version of his ethical project. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, he responded to criticisms of that early work. Central to Levinas’s description of the ethical relationship are references to literary works including Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare. Although Levinas was an observant Jew, the biblical narratives, in addition to being part of a sacred text, also serve as rich sources of examples for the philosophical descriptions of the ethical relationship he develops. Levinas is not obviously identified with literary theory—not in the way that Derrida is, for example. He did become popular within literary theory circles in the 1990s and might be taught more frequently in comparative literature departments than in philosophy departments, especially in the United States. His friendship with both Blanchot and Derrida had a significant impact not only on their thinking but also those who whose work was influenced by them. References to terms like the other/Other, the trace, hospitality, ethics, and alterity found throughout Blanchot and Derrida, and now more commonly in literary theory, can be traced back to Levinas’s ethical project.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"525 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116276662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Thing Theory","authors":"Sarah Wasserman","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0097","url":null,"abstract":"Thing theory names an approach that scholars use to investigate human-object relations in art, literature, culture, and everyday life. Though commonly thought of as a way to study physical artifacts, thing theory is rather a means to explore the dynamics between human subjects and inanimate objects. Thing theory emerges from the scholarly concern with commodity capitalism, and therefore has many antecedents in anthropology, art history, and museum studies. But it more precisely names the theoretical framework that developed within English departments in the 1990s, and prompted literary studies to turn upon the object matter of literature. The phrase “thing theory” came widely into use in 2001, in Bill Brown’s introduction to a special issue of Critical Inquiry titled Things. There, Brown describes the questions that thing theory raises as queries not into objects alone, but into subject-object relations in particular spaces, at particular times. Literature was central to these queries, not only because English departments in the 1990s were home to the “high theory” that Brown draws upon, but because, as he argues, it is a privileged medium for revealing the force of inanimate objects in human experience. In other words, literature makes the “thingness” of objects visible. This distinction comes from Heidegger, for whom objects become things when they can no longer serve their common or intended function. When an object breaks or is misused, it sheds its conventional role and becomes visible in new ways: it becomes a thing. Thing theory draws upon this notion of productive estrangement to consider the meaning that physical artifacts can have for human subjects. While thing theory entails discussions of “real” artifacts, it has primarily been used by scholars in the humanities to discuss the representation of such things in art and literature—specifically as a means to understand what meaning such representations hold. Around 2010, a number of books about the agency of objects by philosophers, political scientists, and media studies scholars inaugurated what might be called a second phase of thing theory. This second phase entailed scholars seeking to decenter the human subject in their materialist studies. These “new materialisms” are less confined to representational forms and have expanded the reach of thing theory well beyond literary studies. The new materialisms—some of which build directly on an older Marxist tradition of historical materialism—and other branches of thought that attempt to decenter the human, including object-oriented ontology, actor-network theory, ecocriticism, and posthumanism, draw upon thing theory but might best be thought of as a set of allied approaches interested in the agency of things. This bibliography tracks the initial phase of thing theory in literary studies, consolidates the earlier scholarship it draws on most consistently, outlines the second phase of thing theory across a variety of fields, and looks to w","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117214967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"René Girard","authors":"Wolfgang Palaver","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0098","url":null,"abstract":"René Noël Théophile Girard (b. 25 December 1923 in Avignon, d. 4 November 2015 in Stanford) was a French-American cultural anthropologist who discovered in the works of European novelists like Cervantes, Flaubert, Stendhal, Proust, and Dostoevsky the important impact of imitative desire on human relations. This insight became the basis for his mimetic theory, an anthropological approach that has not only helped to interpret literature, but has also become a theoretical tool to understand the development of human culture and particularly the role of religion in it. By distinguishing between the sacred of early religions and the holy as the core of the Judeo-Christian tradition, mimetic theory provides a theory of religion that contributes also to a better understanding of the post-Axial religions. Mimetic theory, however, reaches far beyond literature and religion, as its application in fields like anthropology, psychology, theology, and history as well as political and economic theory shows. Similar to the broad outreach of mimetic theory, also Girard himself entered many different scholarly disciplines. He studied medieval and modern history before he entered fields like literary criticism, religious and classical studies, and biblical literature. In 1947, he graduated with a dissertation on marriage and private life in 15th-century Avignon as an archiviste-paléographe from the École des Chartes in Paris. Soon afterward, he left for the United States to study contemporary history at Indiana University, where he received his PhD with a dissertation on “American Opinion on France, 1940–1943” in 1950. After working as an instructor of French literature at Duke University (1952) and as an assistant professor at Bryn Mawr College (1953–1957), he held professorships at Johns Hopkins University (1957–1968; 1976–1981), in the Department of English at SUNY Buffalo (1986–1976), and finally at Stanford University (1981–1995). He received honorary degrees and awards from many different universities and academic institutions and was elected in 2005 to the Académie française. His mimetic theory consists mainly of four stages: (1) mimetic desire as he discovered it in great literature; (2) the scapegoat mechanism as the origin of human culture and early religions; (3) his theory of religion, which distinguishes between the sacred of early religions and the holiness that characterized the Judeo-Christian tradition; and (4) finally his apocalyptic view of history, which started with a chapter on Dostoevsky in his first book and culminated in his reflections on Clausewitz’s theory of war in his last book.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121020650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Philosophy of Theater","authors":"Michael Y. Bennett","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0095","url":null,"abstract":"Theater—i.e., traditional text-based theater—is often considered the art form that most closely resembles lived life: real bodies in space play out a story through the passage of time. Because of this, theater (or theatre) has long been a laboratory of, and for, philosophical thought and reflection. The study of philosophy and theater has a history that dates back to, and flourished in, ancient Greece and Rome. While philosophers over the centuries have revisited the study of theater, the past four decades in particular have seen a noted and substantial increase of scholarship investigating this intersection between philosophy and theater. “Philosophy of theater” is, on one hand, a “field” that is just starting to take shape and is barely over a decade old; on another hand, it is a recognized subfield both of aesthetics and of theater and performance studies. And finally, it is also an amorphous concept, either not yet fleshed out, or intentionally amorphous and proudly organic. Philosophy of theater is also sometimes referred to—or is argued to be subsumed, more broadly, in—“performance philosophy,” which also refers to a network of academics and practitioners that publishes a book series and a journal of the same name. Regardless of what it is called or how it is classified, scholarship has coalesced around some fundamental preoccupations, which are not too dissimilar to questions that arise in other philosophies of. . . (e.g., art, film, dance, etc.). The debates in philosophy of theater mostly fall into three of the main branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. The major metaphysical debates center on an ontological question: What is theater? Epistemological studies tend to focus on audience reception and/or how meaning is made and/or transmitted. Finally, studies in aesthetics focus on two main questions: (1) What is theater as an art form? (2) What is the relationship between dramatic text and theatrical performance? This article is intentionally narrow in its scope, focusing on philosophy and theater traditions that came out of Greek theater and philosophy, in order to ensure a sufficient amount of depth, not (merely) breadth.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121804080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Diaspora","authors":"Françoise Král","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0092","url":null,"abstract":"The term “diaspora” was a neologism coined by the translators of the Hebraic Bible into Greek in the 3rd century bc, and derived from the Greek diaspeirein (“dia” meaning “through, across” and “speirein” “to scatter”). Originally associated with the Jewish diaspora, the term was later used to refer to other diasporas, and in particular the Armenian diaspora. In the second half of the 20th century, the term “diaspora” took on a broader meaning, often being used synonymously with migration as in the cases of the migrations from eastern European nations to western Europe or the United States between the two world wars; the Empire Windrush generation of West Indians who relocated to the United Kingdom; the Asian and South Asian diasporas in America, the United Kingdom, and Canada; and sometimes the “double diasporas” (people from former colonial nations sent to other colonized countries under colonial rule, such as the Indians sent to Kenya by the British and who helped build the railway lines). These more recent diasporas are no longer religious diasporas; they have their origins in economic, political, and more recently climate-related issues and are triggered by reasons ranging from improving the quality of their lives to war and being in fear for their lives. While immigration is defined as an individual venture, the collective dimension is central to the diasporic experience as diasporas are not only made up of individuals but also of groups of people who leave their home countries. Despite their relocation to a new land, diasporas maintain a strong bond with their homelands; diasporas are therefore often associated with nostalgia, a mood largely reflected in their cultural productions, particularly in film and literature. The polarity home country/host country was later called into question, in particular in the wake of the deconstructionist critique of essentialist concepts, such as home, identity, or belonging, leading to a redefinition of “home” as “homemaking.” The central issue of identity also ceased to be defined in an essentialist perspective as the negotiation of dual identities, double belonging, bilingualism, double loyalties and transnationalism came into focus. In the 21st century, in the context of global economic migrations, terror migration, and environmental migrations, the emphasis is gradually shifting from issues of identity and belonging to the pragmatics of survival and relocation; and the field increasingly intersects not only with contiguous disciplines in the humanities but with contiguous areas of scholarship (gender studies, queer studies, vulnerability studies, disability studies, ecocriticism, the digital humanities, to name only a few).","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"157 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133062725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Human Rights and Literature","authors":"P. Nayar","doi":"10.1057/978-1-137-50432-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50432-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122284407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Linda Hutcheon","authors":"G. Lernout","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0093","url":null,"abstract":"Linda Hutcheon (b. 1947 as Linda Bortolotti) grew up in Toronto, where she did her honors bachelor of arts in modern languages and literatures, and where, after a master of arts in Romance studies at Cornell University, she also defended her doctorate in comparative literature. Hutcheon spent her early academic career as a professor of English at McMaster University before moving back to the University of Toronto in 1988, to the department of English and the Centre for Comparative Literature; she was made University Professor in 1996 and became emeritus in 2010. The impact of her work is felt in a number of distinct but related fields: in literary theory and history, in the study of Canadian literature and culture, in the definition(s) of postmodernism, and most recently, in collaboration with her husband Michael Hutcheon in the scholarly study of opera. Hutcheon’s main contribution to literary criticism may well be her work on the theory and practice of postmodernism, starting with her dissertation on what she then called narcissistic narrative. From a wide and varied theoretical background, she has defined and redefined the contours of postmodernism, doing so on the basis of the close study of postmodernist works in different disciplines: not just literature, but also architecture, music, and the visual arts. What distinguishes Hutcheon’s contribution to literary criticism and art theory is the width of her frame of reference, in terms of both the variety of the works that she has studied and of the critical approaches that she addresses in her own thinking. This width is also reflected in the numerous collaborative initiatives in which she has been involved during her long career: she is one of the few literary critics of her generation to have fully engaged in collaboration with many others, including her husband. With other scholars, she has written articles, published books, and edited special issues of journals and essay collections.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127691111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Theatre of the Absurd","authors":"Michael Y. Bennett","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0094","url":null,"abstract":"Coined and first theorized by BBC Radio drama critic Martin Esslin in a 1960 article and a 1961 book of the same name, the “Theatre of the Absurd” is a literary and theatrical term used to describe a disparate group of avant-garde plays by a number of mostly European or American avant-garde playwrights whose theatrical careers, generally, began in the 1950s and 1960s. Of the playwrights and writers (whether or not accurately) associated with this movement that has not been self-proclaimed, four were awarded Nobel Prizes in Literature: Samuel Beckett, Harold Pinter, Albert Camus, and Jean-Paul Sartre (who refused the award). Other major playwrights associated with the absurd are Edward Albee, Eugène Ionesco, and Jean Genet (among other important and minor playwrights). Often misconstrued as existentialist or nihilistic plays, they signaled the end of theatrical “modernism.” As such, some of these plays are considered among the most important and influential plays of the 20th century in their own right. As a group of plays, the Theatre of the Absurd, or known more casually as “absurd theater” or “absurd drama,” is widely considered, if not the most, certainly one of the most important theatrical movements of the second half of the 20th century. Besides leaving a treasure trove of important avant-garde plays, absurd drama and dramatists have left as possibly their greatest legacy, namely, that the tragicomic worldview of these plays has been subsumed by mainstream plays. Indeed, tragicomedy has become the default theatrical genre over the past five or so decades.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131388674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cultural Materialism","authors":"H. Bertens","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0091","url":null,"abstract":"Cultural materialism as a literary critical practice—this article will not address its anthropological namesake—is a Marxist-inspired and mostly British approach to in particular Shakespeare and early modern English literature that emerged and became prominent in the 1980s. Its emphasis on the historical and material conditions of the production and reception of texts has remained influential, even if its political commitment and interventionist purposes have largely been abandoned and increasingly ignored. While certain of its formulations would seem to echo Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, or other thinkers of the period, the main influence is the British literary and cultural critic Raymond Williams, and his re-theorization, following Antonio Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony, of the orthodox Marxist binary of base and superstructure. For Williams, who coined the term “cultural materialism,” culture is neither a mere reflection of that base nor wholly independent of it. This does not rule out intentional human practice, but rejects the idealist position in seeing that practice as inseparable from specific historical conditions. Still, with culture not wholly determined by an economic base, it plays its own role in the construction and/or reproduction of the social totality, and inevitably becomes the site of ideological struggle. Next to the dominant, hegemonic cultural formation we will thus find declining, residual formations and nascent, emergent ones. Cultural materialism focused on the ideological forces at work in Shakespeare (and early modern literature more generally), in Shakespeare studies, and in contemporary re-stagings and representations—in for instance secondary education and advertising—of Shakespeare and/or his work. Rejecting humanist beliefs in transcendent, ahistorical, truth and in an essential human nature, cultural materialists insisted on historicization and argued that Shakespeare—and the study of literature in general—had been hijacked by a conservative humanist ideology that presented itself as timeless and “natural” and perhaps unwittingly colluded with a profoundly unjust and rapacious social order. One of cultural materialism’s main interests was social stratification and the way in which the dominant social order sought (and seeks) to legitimize itself—for instance through the construction of socially marginalized groups as “other,” a practice that led to an early interest in issues of gender and race, and would substantially contribute to the rise of queer studies. Inspired by its belief that ideological hegemony is never absolute and that all ideology at some point contradicts itself, cultural materialism reads texts for signs of subversion and political dissidence, arriving at often provocative interpretations whose ulterior purpose was to serve as interventions in current political debates.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116899363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Jonathan Dollimore","authors":"C. Marlow","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0089","url":null,"abstract":"Jonathan Dollimore (b. 1948) is a writer and academic whose work on early modern literature, desire, and sexuality has been of preeminent importance to English studies for the last forty years. He is best known as the author of Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries and Sexual Dissidence, as the co-editor of and key contributor to Political Shakespeare, and as the co-originator, with Alan Sinfield, of the critical practice known as cultural materialism. Taken together these interventions revolutionized literary studies by combining a dedication to close textual analysis with an examination of the social and political contexts within which texts are produced and received, a deployment of theory and philosophy and, most controversially, an explicit commitment to progressive political causes. Each of the latter three aspects of this methodology met with considerable objections because they challenged idealist notions of literature as timeless, apolitical, and offering privileged access to an unchanging human nature. Alongside New Historicism, Dollimore and Sinfield’s cultural materialism has been instrumental in introducing an interdisciplinary approach to the study of English literature, so much so that it is now routine for critics and students to consider historical documents, theory, and popular culture alongside canonical literary texts. It is, however, less common to see the political and philosophical elements of Dollimore’s method being pursued systematically, a tendency that he has lamented. Dollimore has always advocated that politics and theory should be backed up with action; to this end, in the same year as the publication of Sexual Dissidence (1991), he co-founded with Sinfield the Centre for the Study of Sexual Dissidence at the University of Sussex, a hub for research and teaching on sexuality and queer studies. The first of its kind in the United Kingdom, the controversial center did significant work to establish the discipline of queer studies/queer theory in the United Kingdom. Dollimore’s work has always been concerned with locating marginal groups within hegemonic cultures, be they gays, lesbians or bisexuals, crossdressers, sex workers, or “perverts,” and with showing how dissident ideas and practices persist alongside dominant ideologies and can even be co-opted by them. He has repeatedly argued against “wishful” uses of theory, and advocates a sustained engagement with intellectual history as a vital corrective to this tendency, an approach that he has practiced throughout his career.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125856804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}