LLI 2015

Source Base n 5

Tarantino M. Beln

Bibliography:
de Man, P. (1982) The resistance to Theory in Lodge, D. and Wood, N. (Ed) Modern Criticism
and Theory- A reader. Pp (331- 347) Harlow, UK. Pearson Education.
Main idea:
The author analyses how a sense of resistance to literary theory has developed for considering it
threatening, and he states that that resistance cannot be avoided for being inherent to literature.
Summary:
At the beginning of his analysis, de Man states that the main issue within literary theory is the
impossibility of its definition. He also reflects on the difficulty of finding a common and
effective method of analysis, and the teaching of it by scholars. In order to clarify the definition
of literary theory, he distinguishes a theoretical approach from a pragmatic one. The first one
focuses on the confusion that arises from the fact that the literary thing being analyzed has a
doubtful existence (as a material object). The second focuses on the degree of resistance to
theory that has been developing. This resistance began with a strategy of overenthusiasm,
followed by disappointment and restriction of the analysis.
After reflecting on the antecedents of literary theory since the 1960s, he claims that literary
theory was born with the introduction of linguistics and by the application of Saussures
semiotics. This separated literary theory from literary history and literary criticism. It was then
that the object of literary theory emerged and it was called literariness. The author now begins
to analyze and refute several attacks made on literary theory. Firstly, he clarifies that, even when
there is confusion about it, literariness does not imply an aesthetic study. Also, due to the
referential function of language, literature is associated with mimesis, which is not correct. He
then poses an accusation made against literature: that it was considered to be fiction to deny
reality. He answers to it by explaining that literature is not governed by the rules of reality and
that this confusion is called ideology. He hypothesizes that, as literary theory unmasks ideologies
and challenges the domination of aesthetics and the presence of a canon, it is considered a threat.
However, the analysis continues and the author comes to the point in which it is the method that
causes the resistance. He explains that several modes and methods were applied to reading in
literary theory at different times: referential, semiological, grammatical (in connection with
logics as having the most unquestionable method) performative (based on the study of speech
acts); but all of them failed to quiet the resistance. It follows that, resistance is inherent to literary
theory, which is why it cannot be overcome.
Concepts:
Literary thing: I understood that the author refers to what makes a certain text literature or not.
Literariness: (this is a very difficult concept to define, but Ill try my best as I feel it is a key one)

It is the object of study of literary theory. It involves the way in which signifiers are arranged in
order to create a certain effect. This effect can be achieved through the use of figurative
language, in order to entertain, transmit emotions or ideals, and raise an awareness of a certain
issue, but, as de Man states contains no responsible pronouncement on the nature of the
world. It does not imply what makes a piece of writing beautiful, but, as I understood, it is
more concerned with the effect it causes and how it causes it.
Aesthetics: it is concerned with the appreciation of beauty in a certain piece of art. It implies
standards of what is considered to be beautiful (which varies depending on who is to decide).
My reflections after reading:
I must confess this particular source base made me reflect way more than I had imagined after
my first reading of it. I needed several readings and re readings of both, the text and my notes.
In connection with the summary, I found that, even though the development of the chapter was
logical and quite clear, it was hard to prioritize and organize everything without going back and
forth. When I came to the point of selecting the concepts, I knew I had to include literariness. But
it is such a complex term I almost give up. I re read, researched and analyzed almost every word
used by de Man to refer to it. I am sure I fell short, but I assure you I tried my best.