Hopkins Impromptu: Following Jacques Derrida Through Theory's Empire

Hopkins Impromptu:Following Jacques Derrida Through Theory's Empire

Little is left to tell about "theory." The appearance in 2005 of Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent occurred, its editors tell us, "at a moment when [. . .] theoretical discussions of literature [had] become stagnant [. . .]."¹ The current state of "theory" on this account is one of "immobility," an "impasse," a "dead end."² In a last attempt to obtain relief—personal, disciplinary, and institutional—we are, perhaps, to stop "doing theory,"³ limiting ourselves instead to what would be "doing literature." Our intellectual promenades would henceforth go out and backto where nothing ever shared.

But are we to accept the closing of the book, faced with the mantra little is left to tell, which prepares the way for immanent closure: nothing is left to tell? Are we left with only repetitions, "endless reassertions [. . .] that [we] are still 'doing theory,' understood as a superior and demanding labor,"⁴ which is to say, as the profounds of mind which have lead to the stasis of immobility, impasse, and death?

The editors of Theory's Empire, Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral, are careful "to distinguish between 'a theory' as one approach among many, 'theory' as a system of concepts employed in the humanities, and Theory ["emblazoned with a capital T"] as an overarching 'practice' of our time."⁵ With Theory thus distinguished, its practitioners become open to the charge of hypocrisy, since the practice of Theory was to have been the liberative challenge to any overarching practice. Certainly there are individual hypocrites in this world, and even within the academy. The claim, however, is that this hypocrisy of Theory's practitioners has become institutionalized, especially in the classroom and in the anthologies used in teaching: "Most theory anthologies and guides to the practical application of Theory do not address the incoherence in their use of the operative term."⁶ This particular charge that the editors of theory anthologies do not address their own incoherence hardly seems relevant, since they presumably do not believe, rightly or wrongly, there to be any incoherence in what they do. The charge regains relevance when it continues: "And, indeed, the incoherence exists only if one takes the word seriously."⁷ So the Theory-editors are either not serious about the word, blind to its incoherence, or silent about the incoherence for whatever reason.

But just which word is supposed to be taken seriously, or not? For if the word is Theory, "emblazoned with a capital T," then it is doubtful that the editors of the anthologies or guides critiqued by Patai and Corral take the word seriously. One can easily imagine their counter-charge that incoherence arises only from the adoption of a term, Theory, invented for the purpose of charging incoherence, i.e., that the editors of Theory's Empire commit the Straw Man fallacy. If the word is theory, without the emblazoning T (as the reference to "theory anthologies" allows), then, in all seriousness, no incoherence arises, although some potentially serious sins of omission remain.⁸ Having gathered instances of theory into one volume would not, such editors could maintain, introduce a universal, overarching Theory. Is it incoherent, moreover, that the editors of Theory's Empire have switched here to a lower-case t when referring to the "theory anthologies" they wish to complement with their own anthology of dissent? More generously, perhaps, one could just recognize how unstable overarching practices can be, ever in danger of betraying their invented nature, the prosthesis of their emblazoning capital.⁹

I admit to not taking the word Theory, "emblazoned with a capital T," very seriously. Still, the editors of Theory's Empire would be right to object to the belief in an overarching practice called Theory, wherever it may occur, especially were it to produce negative personal, disciplinary, or institutional effects. The question becomes whether those who claim to do theory are in fact...