自由主义理论与18世纪的批评

Q4 Social Sciences Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture Pub Date : 2022-03-29 DOI:10.1353/sec.2022.0004
D. Rosen, A. Santesso
{"title":"自由主义理论与18世纪的批评","authors":"D. Rosen, A. Santesso","doi":"10.1353/sec.2022.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In recent years the academic study of literature has been riven by debates over the merits of “critique” (and near synonyms like “strong theory” and “hermeneutics”). In most of these debates, the only imaginable alternatives to the ostensibly destructive and “suspicious” practices of critique have been various forms of “weak” (i.e., descriptive, contextualizing, or affective) theory. In this essay we argue that: a) the dichotomy presented by advocates of “critique” and “postcritique” is a false one, and b) there is an ambitious and complex species of theory native to the eighteenth century that stands outside this dichotomy altogether. We trace the origins of this “native” theory in the work of a series of authors from Locke, to Dryden and Behn, to Addison, Fielding, and Johnson, to (ultimately) Wollstonecraft and Wordsworth. We argue that this native theory is an outgrowth of period thinking about contracts and (especially) liberalism. Although this theoretical tradition was extinguished, primarily by the “hermeneutic turn” of the early nineteenth century, before it could be fully articulated, we argue that it points to an ethical mode of reading that may be vital to the survival of the discipline today.","PeriodicalId":39439,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liberal Theory and Eighteenth-Century Criticism\",\"authors\":\"D. Rosen, A. Santesso\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/sec.2022.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In recent years the academic study of literature has been riven by debates over the merits of “critique” (and near synonyms like “strong theory” and “hermeneutics”). In most of these debates, the only imaginable alternatives to the ostensibly destructive and “suspicious” practices of critique have been various forms of “weak” (i.e., descriptive, contextualizing, or affective) theory. In this essay we argue that: a) the dichotomy presented by advocates of “critique” and “postcritique” is a false one, and b) there is an ambitious and complex species of theory native to the eighteenth century that stands outside this dichotomy altogether. We trace the origins of this “native” theory in the work of a series of authors from Locke, to Dryden and Behn, to Addison, Fielding, and Johnson, to (ultimately) Wollstonecraft and Wordsworth. We argue that this native theory is an outgrowth of period thinking about contracts and (especially) liberalism. Although this theoretical tradition was extinguished, primarily by the “hermeneutic turn” of the early nineteenth century, before it could be fully articulated, we argue that it points to an ethical mode of reading that may be vital to the survival of the discipline today.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/sec.2022.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sec.2022.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:近年来,关于“批判”(以及“强理论”和“解释学”等同义词)优点的争论使文学学术研究陷入了分裂。在大多数这些辩论中,除了表面上具有破坏性和“可疑”的批评实践之外,唯一可以想象的替代方案是各种形式的“弱”(即描述性、情境化或情感性)理论。在这篇文章中,我们认为:a)“批判”和“后英国”的倡导者提出的二分法是错误的,b)18世纪有一种雄心勃勃、复杂的理论完全站在这种二分法之外。我们在一系列作家的作品中追溯了这种“本土”理论的起源,从洛克到德莱顿和贝恩,到艾迪生、菲尔丁和约翰逊,再到(最终)沃斯通克拉夫特和华兹华斯。我们认为,这种本土理论是对契约和(尤其是)自由主义的时代思考的产物。尽管这一理论传统在被完全阐明之前就已经消亡了,主要是因为19世纪初的“解释学转向”,但我们认为,它指向了一种道德阅读模式,这可能对当今学科的生存至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Liberal Theory and Eighteenth-Century Criticism
Abstract:In recent years the academic study of literature has been riven by debates over the merits of “critique” (and near synonyms like “strong theory” and “hermeneutics”). In most of these debates, the only imaginable alternatives to the ostensibly destructive and “suspicious” practices of critique have been various forms of “weak” (i.e., descriptive, contextualizing, or affective) theory. In this essay we argue that: a) the dichotomy presented by advocates of “critique” and “postcritique” is a false one, and b) there is an ambitious and complex species of theory native to the eighteenth century that stands outside this dichotomy altogether. We trace the origins of this “native” theory in the work of a series of authors from Locke, to Dryden and Behn, to Addison, Fielding, and Johnson, to (ultimately) Wollstonecraft and Wordsworth. We argue that this native theory is an outgrowth of period thinking about contracts and (especially) liberalism. Although this theoretical tradition was extinguished, primarily by the “hermeneutic turn” of the early nineteenth century, before it could be fully articulated, we argue that it points to an ethical mode of reading that may be vital to the survival of the discipline today.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture
Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Society sponsors two publications that make available today’s best interdisciplinary work: the quarterly journal Eighteenth-Century Studies and the annual volume Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture. In addition, the Society distributes a newsletter and the teaching pamphlet and innovative course design proposals are published on the website. The annual volume of SECC is available to members at a reduced cost; all other publications are included with membership.
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Decolonization and Eighteenth-Century Studies Raw Movement: Material Circulation in the Colonial Eighteenth Century The Making and Unmaking of San Luis, an Apalachee-Spanish Town in Florida Rebuilding Eighteenth-Century Studies as a Relational Ecology Introduction: The Deserted Village at 250
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1