In recent years, the interest in theory which has once been a moving force of academic research in the field of literary studies appears to have decreased. The status of theory, its relevance and appropriateness for the understanding of literature have been put into doubt. Faced with this observation, some critics have even suggested that we have now entered into a new era of research which can retrospectively be identified as the era "after theory". Against the background of such pronouncements and to a certain extent in opposition to them, the investigations proposed here wish to uphold the idea of the utility and indeed the need for theoretical approaches to literature. To appreciate the status of theory and its possible contribution to a deepened understanding of literature, it is useful not to focus exclusively on the distinction or supposed divide between literature and theory. Instead we should pay attention to what links and unites them. This common ground or common denominator of literature and theory consists in the dimension of language. Furnishing the intellectual material from which both domains of articulation are formed, language constitutes at once the key element of literature and a principal concern of theory. [...] The present volume collects the papers presented in the context of the panel "Languages of Theory" at the conference of the "International Association of Comparative Literature" (ICLA) at Vienna in July 2016. As stated above, our aim is to examine the philological or linguistic preoccupations of current approaches in literary and cultural theory, to look into the (pre-)history of theory's engagement with linguistic concerns and to unfold its conceptual and semantic implications. Taking our cue from the title of the ICLA conference, "The Many Languages of Comparative Literature", we have found it to be a rewarding task to raise the issue of the "languages of theory" and to promote its further exploration and analysis. It is our contention that theoretical approaches and reflections do not only rightfully hold their place in comparative literature studies but that it is also worthwhile to interrogate their conceptual genealogies and terminological choices, their styles of thought and argument as well as their various linguistic engagements. The articles united in this volume have taken up this challenge and attempt to elucidate the intricate relationship of language and theory in exemplary case studies.
|