Literary Theory Beyond Postmodernism

Jens Zimmerman's engaging essay Quo Vadis? Literary Theory Beyond Postmodernism is helpful in a variety of ways. He announces what academia has long understood, but which those outside the academy have yet to acknowledge: that postmodernism no longer characterizes the thought of our period. The period of postmodernism extends, roughly speaking, between 1968-1998.
But its more important contribution is in sketching out the confines of what literary theory ought to look like going forward. Zimmerman asserts, and I agree, that we cannot simply dispense with literary theory, nor should we diminish its contributions in debunking the idea of the autonomous rational subject and the idea that we operate within a neutral objective framework. We are always informed by our prejudices, or implicit 'prior judgments' as Gadamer called them.
The chief deficits of Enlightenment humanism are ones that a future literary theory should rectify.
It will insist that even in the act of close reading (exegesis), it isn't just us and the text. We are also always involved in application even in the act of reading. We are persons who act as well as think, and in both acting and thinking we are motivated by our (ultimate) loves.
A hermeneutic process is involved in our act of knowing (truth), but this truth also has an ethical (goodness) and aesthetic (beauty) dimension. Zimmerman's path forward seems to me important because it recovers the transcendentals of truth, beauty, and goodness as attributes of God, with which the medieval institution we call the university began, and thereby of true human knowing.
❤️ If you find my channel helpful, become a channel member: / drscottmasson

[@hj89786]

Great video! I’d love to see a lecture on Atwood’s ‘The Handmaids Tale’ and a detailed analysis of her methods in relation to the postmodern genre. I really appreciate your content!

[@czarquetzal8344]

Zimmerman's thesis is really great and ideal, but what if one does not subscribe to Judeo-Christian doctrines?

[@LitProf]

Consider the implications of doing so.

[@czarquetzal8344]

@@LitProf teach him the tenets first so that he could construe a text in the lens of Judeo-Christian teachings. That's the right process. Anyway, thanks, Dr. Masson.

[@johnbarlow5214]

Deeply interesting and important lecture. It’s hard to hear a counter to current ideological thinking which isn’t either conservative or purely reactionary; it would be great to hear more thoughts on what a revitalised humanism could look like in reality.

[@LitProf]

Thanks John. I am trying to move in that direction for the final lecture, but it will be as much a summary of the main themes from ancient literary theory (taught last semester) to contemporary literary theory (this one). I will look at the points of divergence, but also sketch what it might look like going forward. A fuller treatment will require a book, if I ever get time...

[@johnbarlow5214]

@@LitProf I look forward to the lecture. I did enjoy reading your book on hermeneutics, so another would be always welcome

[@manonthestars]

Have you interacted with Cornelius Van Til's theology and apologetics? Seems some similarities when it comes to needing interpretation (no brute facts), needing the knowledge of God to have the knowledge of man, Myth of neutrality.

[@LitProf]

I have. But this observation is hardly unique to Van Til.

[@manonthestars]

I would say that Van Til has some unique things to say, at least advancing and emphasizing certain areas especially in apologetics. But yes, he's articulating the reformed tradition, from Vos and Bavinck and so on. From my understanding I don't think he himself thought he was inventing anything new, but merely continuing on the work of others before him. In any case I really appreciate your Channel! Thanks for putting this out on KZbin.

[@ryam4632]

So the humanities cannot stand without the reintroduction of faith in the christian fairytale. Got it.

[@LitProf]

Without a Christian anthropology and narrative of history.