Forum

Dear Editor:

In RAL 29.4 (1998): 213-16, Christopher L. Miller reviewed Literary Theory and African Literature/Théorie littéraire et littérature africaine, edited by Gugler, Lüsebrink, and Martini (Hamburg: Lit Verlag, 1994), and wrote about my paper, "La littérature négro-africaine de langue française: prise de parole et situation de communication": "Bernard Mouralis offers a very general view of 'problems posed by the analysis of black African literary texts' (71), proposing an unexceptionable [sic] dialectic between the 'purely textual' and 'the situation of discourse' (72)." That is far from the truth: my paper is not a "general view," since it examines three concrete examples. Moreover, I believe I have posed a fundamental literary problem about the place of the meaning of a text: does this meaning exist in the text itself, through particular internal properties, or in the interstices between the text and its context? If such a reflection is not theory, I would ask Miller to tell us what theory is. It would indeed be interesting to know his point of view on these matters.

There is, however, a more important and general problem in Miller's review. It is found in his conception of "theory" and "theoretical." From his review of the book's other papers, one can see that Miller believes there is an absolute distinction between theory and literary texts. For him, the first task of scholars is to construct the theory; then, in a second stage, and only then, are they allowed to use this theory to read the literary texts. Thus, according to Miller one cannot read and study a text written by an African if one has not first constructed a theory of African literature; moreover, this theory cannot be valid if it does not refer to the notion of the postcolonial (213). Such an opposition between a theory suited to African texts and a Eurocentric theory suited only to Western texts is quite naive and founded on a simplistic essentialism.

In fact, the more Miller says "theory," the more he forgets "science," its aims, and its methods, because science can never be founded on the use of the verb "to be"—What is the theory? What is African literature?—but only on the scrutiny of uses: How do African writers use the language? How do African people read African literature? How do African writers read other literatures? and so on. Some questions are ineffective; others are effective.

Of course, Miller's constant repetition of "theory" can provide a pleasant diversion. But I do not think that such a "diversion" has a place in RAL, if RAL's aim is scientific research.