The literary turn: Political theory without philosophy.

详细信息   

• 作者：Stow ; Simon Ashley.
• 学历：Doctor
• 年：2002
• 导师：Stimson, Shannon C.
• 毕业院校：University of California
• 专业：Political Science, General.;Philosophy.;Language, Rhetoric and Composition.
• ISBN：0493824626
• CBH：3063564
• Country：USA
• 语种：English
• FileSize：10293016
• Pages：306

文摘

This dissertation identifies a turn to literature and literary criticism as a source of insight in political and social theory. I argue that the claims made on behalf of this turn are overstated. I nevertheless highlight ways in which literary methods can act as a source of theoretical reflection and political construction. I focus on three claims: that the rejection of Enlightenment Reason entails a rejection of philosophical argument and a move towards literary theory as our paradigmatic critical practice; that literature can—by generating a moral/emotional response—provide a basis for liberal-democracy in a post-Rawlsian world; and that literature can generate insight into the political that is unavailable through behavioral social science. Examining these claims in the work of four contemporary theorists—Judith Butler, Terry Eagleton, Martha Nussbaum and Richard Rorty—I rework them in important ways. Accepting the basic tenets of postfoundationalism, I argue that the rejection of philosophy is premature, and that literary methods can enhance critical political thought not replace it. Second, I argue that whilst literature has the potential to generate critical reflection in its readers, this process is fragile and unpredictable: a product of an interaction between the reader and the text. Thus, political theories predicated on texts having predictable impacts upon their readers are methodologically flawed and politically manipulative: they seek to impose a textual reading on a citizenry to achieve a preconceived end. I offer an alternative account focused upon the effect of discussions about the texts rather than the texts themselves as a source of insight and solidarity for liberal-democracy. Finally, I argue that recent work on politics and literature is influenced by a prior ‘political turn’ in literary studies. Detailing this turn, I argue that it is an unsuitable model for political theory and social science: resting on a confusion between the written world—the world of the text—and the unwritten world—the world in which that text is written—and the standards of justification that pertain in the study of each. I nevertheless offer guidelines for those seeking to use literature as a critical resource in political analysis.