The name carries a strange charge on the current scene of theory. While de Man stands as a representative figure of the turn to theory from the late 1960s on and his work decisively marked the ensuing critical conversation, his name now spurs a range of complicated reactions, from guarded veneration to knee-jerk condemnation. In the aftermath of the discovery of his wartime writings, his name invokes a scandal, a scandal that incurs a series of echoing effects: his demonization, by extension the condemnation of deconstruction and the castigation of theory, the defensive responses of his supporters, and the elision of his name from the official story of deconstruction, as well as the continuation of his work under other names.1 My point here is not to adjudicate the case of de Man, certainly not to condemn or defend him in light of his wartime writings, but to sketch out these effects and what they tell of the current critical scene, of the economy of criticism and theory and the institutional circuit of that economy. For it seems to me, more than any other figure, has become a synechdochal figure for theory and its stakes these past fifteen years, and the charges that his name takes are a cipher of the critical scene. More precisely, the complicated and equivocal effects ensuing from play out the present ambivalent state of theory. In 1980, the case was much different. In some ways, de Man loomed magisterially over the critical scene. To give one instance of his extraordinary sway, as Don Bialostosky points out in the context of Wordsworth criticism, de Man not only marked the scene but set the terms or problematics of Wordsworth criticism on the basis of a few articles-merely sixtyfive or so pages, by Bialostosky's count--displacing other prominent Romanticists, most notably Geoffrey Hartman and M. H. Abrams.2 And de Man was very visible not only in the influence of his texts, but in his tutelary form, via prominent students (such as Barbara Johnson, Cynthia Chase, Andrzej Warminski, Carol Jacobs, Deborah Esch, Peggy Kamuf, and to a lesser or more mediated degree, Neil Hertz, Jonathan Culler, Werner Hamacher, Samuel Weber, and perhaps even Hillis Miller). Further, one can measure his reach inversely by the extent of antagonism he drew. While it would require amassive examination of the institution of literature through that moment to explain the profusion of theory and de Man's role in it, suffice it to say that came to stand in as a figural locus for theory itself, more locally for deconstruction but more generally for the various
Read full abstract