Brock Press

Issue date: 6/12/07 Section: Opinion

For people like me, who are actually interested in learning more about these theorists, these incomplete forays into lit/crit theory are irritating because they are too specific and reductive to be useful outside of the course. For example, I would have gladly spent a semester studying the work of Lacan, Derrida, Butler, Sartre, Delueze, Haraway, Levinas ... I like theory. But lately I feel like I'll only ever learn it with any comprehension on my own, outside of university.
As a solution to my complaint, I'd love to see more pop culture profs with enough confidence in the texts they teach to move forward without depending on theoretical crutches that are too often contrived and little more than tenuous.
I would rather see a more basic treatment of pop culture texts - a near-sighted approach, one that gives creative power to the author rather than writing off the artist's work as little more than flesh on the bones of an intellectual theory.
Secondly, classes could be described more precisely so that students can make better choices before they register. For example, I would not take a class called "A Lacanian analysis of Rave" but I might sign up for "Levinas and 21st century desire".
The near-sighted approach I favour is pretty much a historicist's approach. I'm not sure why historical context has become so secondary in some courses. The knowledge I take from pop culture is largely composed of specific information I've learned about particular artists. Facts about production, the strange habits of writers, influences, sources of inspiration, causes of death, the budget of a film and its subsequent success/failure - not paradigms of analysis.
So, what it all comes down to is: if I want to understand a theorist I will find their work and read their words. If I want to learn about 20th or 21st century literature and Derrida shows up more than Joyce, there had better be a damned good reason.

< prev Page 2 of 2

Article Tools