{"title":"自由主义理论与18世纪的批评","authors":"D. Rosen, A. Santesso","doi":"10.1353/sec.2022.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In recent years the academic study of literature has been riven by debates over the merits of “critique” (and near synonyms like “strong theory” and “hermeneutics”). In most of these debates, the only imaginable alternatives to the ostensibly destructive and “suspicious” practices of critique have been various forms of “weak” (i.e., descriptive, contextualizing, or affective) theory. In this essay we argue that: a) the dichotomy presented by advocates of “critique” and “postcritique” is a false one, and b) there is an ambitious and complex species of theory native to the eighteenth century that stands outside this dichotomy altogether. We trace the origins of this “native” theory in the work of a series of authors from Locke, to Dryden and Behn, to Addison, Fielding, and Johnson, to (ultimately) Wollstonecraft and Wordsworth. We argue that this native theory is an outgrowth of period thinking about contracts and (especially) liberalism. Although this theoretical tradition was extinguished, primarily by the “hermeneutic turn” of the early nineteenth century, before it could be fully articulated, we argue that it points to an ethical mode of reading that may be vital to the survival of the discipline today.","PeriodicalId":39439,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liberal Theory and Eighteenth-Century Criticism\",\"authors\":\"D. Rosen, A. Santesso\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/sec.2022.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In recent years the academic study of literature has been riven by debates over the merits of “critique” (and near synonyms like “strong theory” and “hermeneutics”). In most of these debates, the only imaginable alternatives to the ostensibly destructive and “suspicious” practices of critique have been various forms of “weak” (i.e., descriptive, contextualizing, or affective) theory. In this essay we argue that: a) the dichotomy presented by advocates of “critique” and “postcritique” is a false one, and b) there is an ambitious and complex species of theory native to the eighteenth century that stands outside this dichotomy altogether. We trace the origins of this “native” theory in the work of a series of authors from Locke, to Dryden and Behn, to Addison, Fielding, and Johnson, to (ultimately) Wollstonecraft and Wordsworth. We argue that this native theory is an outgrowth of period thinking about contracts and (especially) liberalism. Although this theoretical tradition was extinguished, primarily by the “hermeneutic turn” of the early nineteenth century, before it could be fully articulated, we argue that it points to an ethical mode of reading that may be vital to the survival of the discipline today.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/sec.2022.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sec.2022.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:In recent years the academic study of literature has been riven by debates over the merits of “critique” (and near synonyms like “strong theory” and “hermeneutics”). In most of these debates, the only imaginable alternatives to the ostensibly destructive and “suspicious” practices of critique have been various forms of “weak” (i.e., descriptive, contextualizing, or affective) theory. In this essay we argue that: a) the dichotomy presented by advocates of “critique” and “postcritique” is a false one, and b) there is an ambitious and complex species of theory native to the eighteenth century that stands outside this dichotomy altogether. We trace the origins of this “native” theory in the work of a series of authors from Locke, to Dryden and Behn, to Addison, Fielding, and Johnson, to (ultimately) Wollstonecraft and Wordsworth. We argue that this native theory is an outgrowth of period thinking about contracts and (especially) liberalism. Although this theoretical tradition was extinguished, primarily by the “hermeneutic turn” of the early nineteenth century, before it could be fully articulated, we argue that it points to an ethical mode of reading that may be vital to the survival of the discipline today.
期刊介绍:
The Society sponsors two publications that make available today’s best interdisciplinary work: the quarterly journal Eighteenth-Century Studies and the annual volume Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture. In addition, the Society distributes a newsletter and the teaching pamphlet and innovative course design proposals are published on the website. The annual volume of SECC is available to members at a reduced cost; all other publications are included with membership.