Experimental Theory

Theory is stronger and more experimental now than it ever was in the twentieth-century. The reason for this is not necessarily a deepening or intensification of the work of theory in traditional areas such as literary criticism and critique (though arguments may be made here), but rather a widening or broadening of its reach and domain.

Theory today is a multi-and interdisciplinary endeavor that operates within and among the humanities (particularly, history, languages, linguistics, the arts, philosophy and religion in addition to literature), the social sciences (including anthropology, ethnic and cultural studies, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology), and many of the professions (for example, architecture, business, communication, education, environmental studies, journalism, law, museum studies, media studies, military science, public policy, and sport science, among others).

In addition to its now somewhat more standard-fare work in these areas, of which prime examples are readily available, it has also made some exciting experimental inroads into the natural sciences (for example, biology, physics, the earth sciences, and the space sciences) and the formal sciences (especially mathematics, computer science, and systems science).

To be sure, more disciplines from across the academy have integrated theory into their practice than at any other time in history—and, in many ways, theory today is the id of the disciplines and the experimental engine of interdisciplinary studies.

Moreover, the academic community that engages, supports, and uses theory in the twenty-first century is not only much larger in number than it ever was in the twentieth century, for many the presumed “heyday of theory,” it is also, in part as a consequence of its multi- and inter-disciplinary reach, more diverse with respect to the objects and subjects of its attention.

In addition to traditional objects of theoretical engagement such as literary, philosophical, and artistic texts, many others are now becoming commonplace such as new media, the environment, and even the university itself.

But theory has also extended the range of subjects of its attention. In addition to more commonplace ones such as narrative, identity, translation, and rhetoric, subjects such as affect, globalization, biopolitics, political economy, and institutions have emerged as major areas of experimentation for theory today.

The popularity and strength of theory today is directly related to the experimental fearlessness it engenders in individuals and communities to question the precepts and extend the boundaries of individual disciplines as well as to draw the disciplines into dialogue with each other. In addition, theory’s willingness to turn its critical powers upon itself proves to be still another point of attraction. This is why there seems to be nary a subject or object that has not been engaged in some way or another by theory today. To be sure, most everything is fair game for theory’s experimentation.

If anything has died in the world of theory in the twenty-first century, then it is the dominance of its “-isms.” There was a time in the previous century when affiliation with an “-ism” was the required badge of entry into the theory world. One was not just a “theorist,” but a member of a specific sub-community of theory designated by an “-ism.”

Just as the world of religion has Catholicism, Judaism, and Buddhism, the world of theory had structuralism, Marxism, and feminism. And the lines of division between them within the theory community were at times no less flexible than those within the religious community.

Think about how search committees used to badger job candidates with parochial questions about their theoretical affiliation? To do so today almost seems like a violation of FERPA laws. And woe be to the job candidate who professed the wrong theoretical affiliation. Or confessed to the right one, but was not in line with the preferred house of postmodernism or version of feminism?

Though the late twentieth century may have been the heyday of “high” theory, in retrospect, it appears much more provincial and doctrinaire compared to the contemporary world of theory—one that is not only much more experimental, pluralistic, and amorphous but also less divisive than the previous one.

Whereas in the past, fault lines between and distinctions within...