Editor's Note

Reflection on the topic of this issue, Theory Trouble, co-edited by Ian Buchanan and myself, reveals two interrelated levels of inquiry. On one level, this topic prompts us to examine if theory is indeed in trouble. What are the signs that theory is in trouble? Are the increasing criticisms of theory a cause for concern or a normal cycle in the development of a body of scholarship? On another level, the topic leads us to ask whether theory is in need of troubling. Does literary and critical theory need re-evaluation or redirection? What are the sufficient conditions that would warrant “troubling” theory? Responding to these questions—as do the essays in this volume—presents theory with its best hope for continuing relevancy in the academy.

To a great extent, the success of theory can be linked to the constant efforts of theorists to both advocate and question theory, to praise theory and admonish it. Consider the following statement by William Cain:

“Theory” cannot cease; we need always to study the assumptions that lie behind criticism and teaching and must strive to make both of these more supple and historically sound. But contemporary theory is very much in need of a dramatic reorientation, precisely because it no longer bears much relation to the critical and pedagogical practices of the discipline. At the present time theorists are too content to write for one another, dispute one another’s positions, and provide occasions for further re-statements of familiar platforms and debates. They are not seeking a means to renovate and reaffirm the discipline, but rather are speaking in a privileged discourse to other members of a highly visible coterie. The “theory” game is a profitable one, and the quantity of books and articles on the subject is astonishing. But whom does this work affect? Whose interests does it serve? Has theory altered literary study in substantive ways, or has it become a powerful distraction that keeps us from attending to recalcitrant facts that have changed very little in recent years?

(246)

After praising theory by saying that it “cannot cease” and is “always needed,” Cain proceeds by enumerating the troubles with theory. The charges leveled by this author include the following: 1) theory lacks a relationship to actual critical and pedagogical practices; 2) theoretical discourse is isolated from other discourses; 3) theorists remain unconcerned with renovating the discipline of literary studies; and 4) the general relevancy of theory is questionable. As described by Cain, contemporary theory is in desperate need of reform.

Cain’s comments are drawn from his investigation of the “problematical state of contemporary theory and criticism” (243) in The Crisis in Criticism: Theory, Literature and Reform in English Studies. While Cain’s observations seem entirely contemporary, The Crisis in Criticismwas published in 1984, the same year of publication as the second and third volumes of Michel Foucault’s Histoire de la sexualité, Pierre Bourdieu’s Homo academicus and Paul de Man’s The Rhetoric of Roman-ticism. Apparently, theory has been in trouble for at least some twenty years. Our discussion today is merely the continuation of a trend towards troubling theory.

The observed troubles with theory have remained remarkably consistent over time. One could contend that the history of discussions of the status of literary and critical theory is co-extensive with the history of theory itself. Periods of doubt as to the health and relevancy of theory generally resolve into periods of growth and lively critical activity. Theory presses on through bouts of self-reflexive crisis.

But in recent years, self-reflection on theory has taken on an even more critical direction. Some critics have argued that the moment has arrived for a new, posttheory generation. Others have announced the death of theory. Still others formulate arguments against theory (theoretical arguments, of course). Major conferences entitled “What’s Left of Theory?” and “Whither Theory?” have further encouraged critical reflection on the condition of theory, and numerous books and articles have pondered the status and future of theory. The question remains, however, if such meta-commentary is a sign of trouble in theory or...