Modern literary theory and the past

It is a well-known fact that during the last three decades or so literary theory has moved centre stage, grabbed the spotlight and has begun to influence contemporary thinking in interesting and complex ways. (Some would, of course, argue that literary theory has moved into rarefied and arcane regions and forcing us to contend with its difficult presence). Such critical schools as phenomenology, structuralism, post-structuralism, new historicism, feminism, reader response theory attest to the power and diversity of literary theory.

Literary theory has been instrumental in ushering in a literary turn not only in the humanities but in the social sciences as well. It is evident that such disciplines as history, anthropology, political science, geography even legal studies, have come under the sway of critical theory. For example, the newly emergent Critical Legal Studies, with its focus on narrative and the linguistic constructions of social reality, displays the indubitable influence of literary theory.

An important facet of this dynamism of literary theory is its Janus-faced nature. What I mean by this is that many of the leading luminaries associated with modern literary theory, even as they forged ahead conquering new territories and opening up novel passageways of inquiry, also looked back to the past for nurturance and guidance. This dual vision has much to offer to those of us in Sri Lanka who are interested in literary studies.

One of the most powerful voices linked to modern literary theory is the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. His impact on literary studies, especially in North America, has been phenomenal. I had the good fortune to have dinner with him in Hong Kong a few years before his death. He is the originator of the influential reading strategy called deconstruction; deconstruction bears traces of Jewish thought and culture. Derrida's famous statement to the effect that there is nothing outside the text is traceable to certain Jewish commentarial texts. Similarly the ideas of text, trace, difference, that play such a pivotal role in Derrida's analytical writings have been inspired by Jewish concepts. Although Derrida himself downplays the influence of Jewish texts, most notably the Kabbalah, on his thinking, certain scholars have sought to establish a direct link. Even if he was not directly influenced, it is patent that there is a meeting of minds, a convergence of thinking here.

Jacques Derrida to be sure, grappled not only with Judaism but also Christianity and Hellenistic writings. Throughout his work we find narratives, motifs, images associated with the Bible. He also laboured relentlessly with Greek texts; to my mind, some of his most insightful analyses grow out of his engagement with important dialogues of Plato.

Harold Bloom is another influential scholar who engendered a great interest in literary theory. He has clearly drawn on Jewish mystical literature. His book Kabbalah and Criticism is evidence of this fact. Kabbalah represents a category of Jewish mystical writing in which language is paramount.

As Bloom says, Kabbalah is "an extraordinary body of rhetoric or figurative language, and indeed a theory of rhetoric." He mines this theory of rhetoric to great effect and displays the significance of Kabbalah as a model for contemporary criticism. Paul de Man is another literary scholar who has enriched the domain of literary theory and extended its frontiers. Anyone familiar with his writings would realize that he drew fruitfully on classical rhetoric. Even before post-structuralist tendencies introduced by these critics, the Canadian scholar Northrop Frye revolutionized the study of literature. He grappled rigorously with Greek and Latin texts as well as the Bible and Blake. And before Frye, Kenneth Burke, who is in many ways an underrated literary theorist, wrote some seminal works that were inspired by classical rhetorical concepts.

It is evident, then, that while modern literary theory forged ahead claiming new spaces, it also constantly looked to the past for future directions. This move has great implications for our own critical efforts and protocols. Martin Wickremasinghe and Ediriweera Sarachchandra are two of the pioneers of modern Sinhala literary criticism. Both of them saw the value of cultural roots and their invigorating presence.

Wickremasinghe, in his customarily discriminating manner, focused on the importance of Dhavani Vada and Auchitya Vada while de-valorizing Alankara Vada. Sarachchandra looked to Rasa Vada, Dhavani Vada, Aucitya Vada etc.for guidance. I recall in our final year as Sinhala honours students, he used to being to class a copy of Kavya Prakasha by Mammta, and explicate selected verses from it in terms of the lexicon of New Criticism. Even as an undergraduate, I found this approach most illuminating. Interestingly, the post-modern theorist Jacques Lacan was enamoured of Dhavani Vada as evidenced in his references to Sanskrit poetics in his highly influential work Ecrits.

These efforts of Wickramasinghe and Sarachchandra are extremely important and potentially productive. However, we need to move beyond works dealing with aesthetics and engage texts dealing with philosophies of language. This is what galvanized contemporary Western literary theory and propelled it towards newer destinations. In this regard, I wish to focus on two texts, one Hindu and the other Buddhist, which shed valuable light on the problematics of language. The two texts are Vakyapadiya by Bhartrihari and Mula Madhyamaka Karika by Nagarjuna, an inveterate formulator of abstract concepts. I have published technical papers in academic journals on both these texts.

The Vakyapadiya calls attention to a number of concepts that are refreshingly modern; that the sentence is the unit of meaning, something that has been stressed by Noam Chosky, and that meaning is use, an idea given concrete shape by later Wittgenstein. In addition, this text, like the work of modern reception theorists, focus on the importance of the receiver. These ideas can be expanded productively.

Nagarjuna's magnum opus, Mula Madhyamaka Karika composed in the second century, is a text that seeks to illuminate the meaning of Buddhism from a Mahayana view point. Nagarjuna's concepts of language bear a striking resemblance to ideas formulated by post-structuralists like Derrida - that there is no reality anterior to language and that reality is a linguistic construct. Both of them seek to map the volatile energy of language and fold it into discussions of identity and reality. Nagarjuna maintained that we live in language and we live language. However, this does not mean that both of them aimed to follow the self - same thought - track; we need to keep in mind that they emerge out of different cultural traditions and knowledge-bases.

Modern literary theory can gain a great deal by looking back; we can insure a vibrant future for it by giving it a prideful past.