stand on the theory, how theoretical you want to be, or how for-
mal your orientation is. We can’t mount as convincing a case and
it’s harder to argue not only significance but originality because
there’s no real, no sort of set terms of agreement.Regardless of “how theoretical” a literary scholar chooses to be,
the discipline now considers mastery of “theory”—defined as a set of
conceptual references, not as an activity leading to prediction—an
essential skill because it can be used to bridge disciplinary and sub-
stantive boundaries. When combined with the lack of “set terms
of agreement” regarding merit, emphasizing theory may, as the pro-
fessor quoted above argues, only exacerbate the discipline’s lack of
coherence. But to the extent that theory makes it possible to commu-
nicate with nonspecialists about topics that cut across areas of exper-
tise, it can positively affect the discipline by enlarging its audience.
One English professor reflects on the centrality of theory and his re-
lationship to it in the following terms:
I wish I were a better theorist...Itendtolovetodotextual anal-
ysis, I love doing that, and I love doing it in film, and I think peo-
ple love watching me do that, or reading me do that, but...I
wish I could be more comfortable playing around with the ideas
generated by the reading...Theory is something I seem to run
awayfrom...maybebecause it requires me to think in ways that
are not intuitive...[Theory] allows for a cross-disciplinary con-
versation. It allows us to put texts in wider conversations with
each other, and I think that’s important.The effort to broaden the audience, to conduct “cross-disciplinary
conversations,” is a logical response to the demographic decline of
the field of English literature.^32 To win acclaim, however, scholars
must perform their theoretical acumen within limits. This in turn
requires an additional skill—the ability to balance theorizing with
On Disciplinary Cultures / 75