JLT-Gespräch: Die Praxis der Literaturtheorie

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Abstract JLT Talks offers a new format for discussing current topics in the field of literary theory. It was inspired by the focus of this special issue, which foregrounds the practice of literary theory. Although the amount of praxeological work has increased in recent years, there are only a few studies that deal specifically with literary theory. The participants in the discussion – Eva Geulen, Steffen Martus, and Carlos Spoerhase – explore the challenges facing a practical analysis of literary theory. They discuss what it might mean to move from the concept of theory to the concept of theorizing, and where the expected advantages and possible deficits of a praxeological approach and reconstruction of theorizing might lie. One focus is put on the questions of how theorizing can be conceptualized, which indicators are to be assumed, to what extent it differs from other practices in literary studies, and which forms and norms of theorizing should be analysed praxeologically. The discussion outlines a spectrum of theorizing practices, ranging from the establishment and implementation of ›grand theories‹ and the theoretical reflection of conceptual foundations to smaller-scale practices, such as abstraction and generalization. In addition, the analytical view of the activities and claims associated with ›theory‹ is distinguished from literary theorists’ self-reflection (self-understanding). Various features are discussed which indicate practices of theorizing, including abstracting, generalizing, explaining and disciplining scientific exchange. In addition, the discussants consider to what extent there are different ›degrees‹ of theorizing, and emphasize the need to distinguish between theory as a result and theory as an activity or process. As proposed, theorizing can be understood as an activity that shapes processes of literary research as a whole and is determined by the subject matter. It becomes clear that practices of theorizing should not be viewed in isolation, but rather in their interplay with other practices, especially practices of interpretation. Further questions that are addressed include the following: What do ›grand theories‹ with general explanatory claims such as deconstruction or systems theory achieve, and to what extent have they changed literary studies? How can theorizing be better conveyed in university teaching? The ›standard‹ approach – reading theoretical texts, deriving methodological consequences from them, and applying them to literary texts – is considered to be inadequate. Instead, in teaching, stronger emphasis should be put on theorizing as an intellectual and collaborative activity. This could be achieved by integrating practices of trial and error into the teaching of theory. The advantage of a theoretical orientation, in the sense of abstraction as well as the generalization of problems and statements, is undisputed, especially with regard to communication and exchange with the international academic community: a common theoretical basis seems to promote international exchange, while facilitating interdisciplinarity. Nevertheless, the question arises as to whether there is a certain ›level of theory‹ that guarantees international and interdisciplinary connectivity. What costs are associated with a specific level of generalization? To what extent is the development of abstract ›grand theories‹ driven by a striving for symbolic capital? Finally, the notorious question of the material required for a comprehensive praxeological analysis of theorizing is addressed.