On Contemporary Theory: An Interview with Jeffrey R. Di Leo

On Contemporary TheoryAn Interview with Jeffrey R. Di Leo Gina Masucci MacKenzie (bio), Daniel T. O'Hara (bio), and Jeffrey R. Di Leo (bio) gina masucci mackenzie and daniel t. o'hara: During the mid-1960s and even a bit earlier, developments in American and European criticism and theory paved the way for the major subject matters of contemporary theory, which your recent book, Contemporary Literary and Cultural Theory: An Overview 2023, presents a history of. Such developments as postmodernism/modernism—from Robert Venturi in 1964's Learning from Las Vegas and Nathan Scott's work in literature and religious studies in the late 1960s—and structuralism/existentialism debates, the return of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Freud, and Marx to prominence in intellectual discussions on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as Lévi-Strauss's fortuitous discovery of de Saussure's notebooks on linguistics. How do you see your book following upon such intellectual history? jeffrey r. di leo: One of the challenges of an overview of contemporary literary and cultural theory is how many layers of intellectual pavement to discuss and in what context. My pavement compass for this project regarding work done in the 1950s and mid-1960s was determined first by the level of current interest in the figures, debates, movements, and discussions from this period. If the intellectual currents from this period are being used and discussed by the contemporary theorists presented in the book, then an effort was made to address them. However, if they are of little concern to them, then they are generally not brought up. So, for example, whereas on the one hand, as the work of Freud and Marx is still central to many of the concerns of the contemporary theorists discussed in the book, they are given their own subsections, while on the other hand, because Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are much more peripheral figures in contemporary discussions, they are not afforded their own subsections. In terms of movements, by the same rationale, there is more excavation End Page 124 of layers of structuralist pavement than existentialist; more postmodernist than modernist. Moreover, if movements and key figures from the 1950s and mid-1960s or any period before or after are of sufficient contemporary interest, then an effort was made to integrate them into the book. In short, my thinking regarding how much intellectual history to lay out tends to be recursive in this book: if understanding the major topoi of contemporary literary and cultural theory is simply not possible without excavating topoi from the past, then every reasonable effort is made to lay them out no matter how near or remote this past. But the key word here is possible, because many of the developments discussed in this book could easily involve intellectual excavation of thousands of years of pavement. For many readers, this would be exciting to find in an overview of contemporary theory; for others, though, it only serves to slow the account of the contemporary down and is boring. As I aimed for a brisk pace and not to be too boring in this book, excavation was kept to a minimum. gmm & dto: Among theorists, there was and is a generalized spirit of inclusivity undermined by the human tendency of exclusivity. How did this factor of human nature affect the development of the schools/movements covered in this text? How did it possibly influence those included in the text? jrd: Based, for example, on presentations at the annual Modern Language Association meetings and peer review of articles for symplokē, the scholarly journal that I edit, I'm not sure that I agree that there is a general spirit of inclusivity among theorists. This is especially the case for theorists that strongly identify with one particular region of contemporary literary and cultural theory. This is why I felt the need to express my theoretical pluralism in the introduction to the book. Whereas most theorists will agree with my claim that there are a variety of contemporary theories of literature and culture, I'm not so sure that most agree that each and every one of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses, and that they are always up...