Three views of literary theory

The paper considers some prominent conceptions of ‘literary theory’. Section 2 examines two such conceptions as they are reflected in two widely accepted ‘paradigms’ of literary-critical discourse. It is argued that such intra-disciplinary differentiations are inevitably imprecise, that elements of the more traditional ‘paradigm’ have been mistakenly rejected, and that the very notion of ‘theory’ within literary studies needs clarification. Such clarification, it is suggested, might proceed by characterising attitudes to ‘literary theory’ in respect of certain metatheoretical issues. Three such issues are educed. Section 3 presents F.R. Leavis and Terry Eagleton as exemplars of dramatically opposed views of ‘literary theory’ (also as exemplars of the two ‘paradigms’ discussed), and considers the views of each in the light of the proposed metatheoretical issues. It concludes that Leavis concedes but over-states the theory resistant character of literary texts; that he countenances teleological, aesthetic and moral modes of textual explanation; and that, whilst denying that he has a developed theory, he claims truthfulness for, and cites (inadequate) evidence in support of, his views. Eagleton, by contrast, denies that texts are theory resistant, espouses causal and teleological (but not moral or aesthetic) modes of textual explanation, and appeals (problematically) to Marxism for evidence of the truthfulness of his theory. Sections 4 and 5 argue for a third ‘view’ of ‘literary theory’ which will be more theoretically rigorous and aware than Leavis's but less reductive than Eagleton's, and which will be more inclusive in its explanatory strategies than the work of either critic.