Suchergebnisse

"Literary Theory and Criminology demonstrates the significance of contemporary literary theory to the discipline of criminology, particularly to those criminologists who are primarily concerned with questions of power, inequality, and harm. Drawing on innovations in philosophical, narrative, cultural, and pulp criminology, it sets out a deconstructive framework as part of a critical criminological critique-praxis. This book comprises eight essays - on globalisation, criminological fiction, poststructuralism, patriarchal political economy, racial capitalism, anthropocidal ecocide, critical theory, and critical praxis - that argue for the value of contemporary literary theory to a critical criminology concerned with the construction of a just and sustainable reality in the face of climate change and other mass harms. This is the first criminology book to engage with literary theory from the perspective of criminology and provides a guide for criminologists who want to deploy literary theory as part of their research programmes. It supersedes existing engagements with poststructuralism in the philosophical criminological tradition because it entails neither a constructionist ontology nor a relativist epistemology. It shows criminologists how literary theory offers the tools to first deconstruct and then reconstruct meaning and value. Literary Theory and Criminology is essential reading for all critical criminological theorists"--

This article highlights how the premises of the radical historicism of Galin Tihanov's book The Birth and Death of Literary Theory (2019) are conditioned by developments within literary theory itself. For Tihanov, changes in literature's perceived usefulness undermine the dominance of its perceived uniqueness, bringing about the demise of theoretical discourses aimed at determining that uniqueness. Exploring the tensions within Russian formalism and Prague structuralism that made possible the abandonment of the adherence to the doctrine of literary autonomy through specific uses of language, the author connects Tihanov's notion of "regimes of relevance" with the concept of "regime" developed by Jacques Rancière. The intersection of these two theorizations of "regime" pinpoint the paradox at the heart of literary theory: the attempt to pose the question of artistic autonomy and specificity produces the dissipation of what was holding this autonomy together.