Rethinking Theory

These days, there happens frequently a debate revolving around the end of theory; the conclusion seems habitually reduced to the slogan such as "back to the something," or "return to somewhere."

In a Korean academic field, in particular, English literary studies, there has been a wide phenomenon showing an uncomfortable feeling against the introduction of theories into a textual reading; to some extent, it is related to the way in which "traditional" nationalism reshapes its own discourse in terms of postcolonialism in Korea, because theory has been considered something imported from American academic institution. The antipathy towards theoretical methods in analyzing literary texts does not merely belong to Korean academic sphere, but rather a long lasting history in British-American literary studies. Therefore, it is not unusual to observe the anti-theoretucal mentality among Korean scholars.

Theory has normally been a reflective thought by which one can see another aspect of a literary or cultural text. In this way, theory is easily set on the opposite side to practical criticism. Contrary to the preconception, no single criticism can come to exist without a theoretical perspective. Theory paves the way in which criticism sets its own critical position by reformulating a theoretical method.

This can be called the radicalization of conventional criticism depending on the habitual system of sensuousness. What is at stake is not the opposition between theory and criticism but rather the interwoven structure between those; the problem is not so much the abuse of theoretical conceptions when analyzing literary and cultural texts as the impotence of theoretical intervention into literary and cultural contexts. In other words, rethinking theory is nothing less than an attempt to re-establish the critical field through which one can see the way stepping out of the iron cage of late capitalism.

English

English is for me a ladder on which I can get to the outside of the place where I have been stuck to. Writing and speaking in English, I find out another myself that is not constructed by so-called "habitus." English is not a language for me, but rather a way in which I can bring on my own "desert island."

Desire

According to Lacan, crucial is that we should not give up desire towards objet petit a; desire is the first step for reshaping the way in which we want something. Deleuze calls this the practice to change the assemblage of desire. In fact, desire works beneath consciousness; nobody can controll it, but desire always leads us to deviant directions to which the conflicting parts of a body paves the way. Lacan argues that the parts of a body desire something different in each. It is interesting that Lacan puts emphasis on the confliction that opens the field of possibility, the one like champ in Bourdieu's terms. The field is an abstract space forcing the habit of perception to be shocked by the real -- this is the typical way of surrealist performance. I think there might be deeper connection between surrealism and the Lacanian concept of desire.