Postcritique — The Interpretative Logic of Postpolitical Age or Wrong in the Neoliberal University?

Abstract

The last decade in literary studies was marked by the so-called postcritical turn. The present paper provides an overview of the most important postcritical tendencies, analytical approaches, methodological tools, ideas for the reform of the discipline and attitudes regarding the uses of literature. Critically focused on the predominance of the hermeneutics of suspicion, the work of scholars prone to postcritical analyses of the literary texts soon itself became the subject of critical questioning. Critics, mostly leftist, typically criticize the postcritics for their lack of scientific objectivity, for narrowing disciplinary boundaries, for abandoning proven interpretative methods and theoretical insights, but also for co-opting neoliberal forces, both in the university and in society, that diminish the importance of literary studies and the humanities in general. The dispute is mainly driven by the issue of the political effectiveness of the discipline and its usefulness to the community. The question arises to what extent the books and academic papers written by Rita Felski, Stephen Best, Sharon Marcus, Heather Love and others preserve the social influence of literary criticism and humanistic values, to what extent they weaken it, and whether they subsume the profession of literary criticism under the economic logic of the capital, affirming at the same time the ethos of postpolitical un-criticality. Here, I try to present this polemic as thouroughly as possible in order to provide insight into the complexity of the issue and ultimately to offer an alternative view of the possible outcome of these new method wars.