Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beyond postmodernism--one can almost hear a sigh of relief. Finally we can say out loud what a growing number of books admit: postmodernism as a movement of renewal has run its course. In literary studies it is not just the inclusion of postmodernism in encyclopedia entries but also its own evident inability to come up with engaging new readings that signal the end of postmodern literary theory. This does not mean that we have already reread the traditional literary canon in postmodern terms but rather that any such readings have become more or less predictable. Postmodern literary theory was born of a desire to liberate from the predictable, a desire for constant renewal and unexpected interpretations, but it has clearly exhausted this potential. Where shall we go from here? Recent studies that try to answer this question indicate that the future of literary theory involves a renewed desire for humanism. The following review of this trend toward humanism suggests that the greatest obstacle in reconceptualizing theory after postmodernism is the failure to ask foundational questions about our reading practices. I shall propose that daring to ask such questions connects the future of theory inevitably with ontology, humanism, and theology. If we agree with the trend of theory after postmodernism and yet desire to affirm postmodern concerns about humanism, the future of theory depends on our ability to define this neo-humanism ontologically by acknowledging the hermeneutic nature of all self-knowledge and the end of metaphysics. With the help of Incarnational theology, we can sketch a reading practice that takes postmodern concerns seriously while allowing us to recover the idea of self-knowledge as the purpose of literary theory. Theory's Return to Humanism Recent assessments of the death of postmodernist theory are united in their desire to recover some kind of humanism. At least one recent publication views theory as the outright betrayal of a long humanistic tradition. In Humanism Betrayed: Theory, Ideology, and Culture in the Contemporary University, Graham Good explains that theory's dehumanizing effects stem from its rejection of individual freedom and objective realism (59). Theory, for Good, constitutes the predominantly Franco-German onslaught on Anglo-American common sense, an invasion that enacts the theory that discourse is speaking rather than an individual being (59). Good argues that postmodernism, poststructuralism, and postcolonialism incarcerate the subject in language, history, and social structures; they reject humanist centuries and their legacy by denying a continuous nature, ignoring the past, and neglecting primary texts (71-73). Good suggests that the university return to a model of education, preferably one modeled on Northrop Frye's liberal humanism, because it enshrines the very values theory opposes: human liberty, creativity, and progress--and indeed the very possibility of a common humanity (102). Good's vision for the university is very attractive, yet can we really go back to 'the authority of logic and reason, of demonstrable and repeatable experiment, of established fact, of compelling imagination' (Good 95)? Should we not ask why and how reason is common to all? (1) Good's nostalgia consists in simply returning to Enlightenment rationalism with its commitment to objective universal reason and science's strict procedures of verification. Can we neglect the criticism of Enlightenment rationalism by philosophers and scientists of the last century and assume that they are simply wrong? It would be wise to remember that the autonomous individual subject died because the emphasis of liberal humanism on universal rationality modeled on the sciences did not, in fact, bring about universal peace and prosperity. Nor has rationalist epistemology satisfied the complex demands of knowing. Good is not alone in interpreting the demise of postmodern theory as a welcome opportunity for returning to humanism. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".