ABSTRACT
Much of the most invigorating social theory in recent times has its origins in the ostensibly unpromising field of literary criticism. The advent of structuralist and then poststructuralist work in literary theory provoked what became known as the ‘theory wars’ in university literature departments. Among literary theorists, one of the most abiding arguments in recent decades was that described by Paul de Man in his ‘The Resistance to Theory’ paper, originally written in 1982. Surprisingly, that paper argues that the greatest resistance to theory comes not from the avowed opponents of theoretical criticism (usually caricatured as ‘common-sense empiricists’), but rather from within theory itself. Key to the logic of the piece is a consideration of the vexing question of linguistic reference: that is, the question of how it is that linguistic signs map on to the non-linguistic material of history and reality. That question, at first glance one that is of purely literary interest, actually contains a major theoretical problem for social and political theory. Here is what de Man writes:
It would be unfortunate, for example, to confuse the materiality of the signifier with the materiality of what it signifies. This may seem obvious enough on the level of light and sound, but it is less so with regard to the general phenomenality of space, time or especially the self; no one in his right mind will try to grow grapes by the luminosity of the word ‘day,’ but it is very difficult not to conceive the pattern of one’s past and future existence as in accordance with temporal and spatial schemes that belong to fictional narratives and not to the world. This does not mean that fictional narratives are not part of the world and of reality; their impact upon the world may be all too strong for comfort. What we call ideology is precisely the confusion of linguistic with natural reality, of reference with phenomenalism.
