Literary theory
...tance to the use of language about language (similar to Barthe’s “discourse upon a discourse). This resistance to language is due to the uncertainty and hence unreliability of language. He then concludes that nothing “can overcome the resistance to theory since theory is itself this resistance” and the language it speaks is the language of resistance. J. Hillis Miller also discusses the grounds of theory by proposing four modes of rationalizing or accounting for the irrational or unaccountable that a good reader should look for in any literary work. These are society, psychology, language, and ontology. However, the process he is calling for is neither “pure theory” nor a series of explications. It is critique which discriminates and tests out the medium between theory and practice. In her essay, “The Race for Theory,” Barbara Christian offers a different perspective on literary theory. She downplays “theoretical discourse” and gives precedence and primacy to the literary experience itself. She views theory as a “constellation of ideas for a time at least, a fixing which no doubt will be replaced in another month or so by somebody else’s competing theory as the race accelerates.” She views the language of theory as one that “mystifies rather than clarifies.” Another reason behind her objection to theory is the idea that theory tries to organize complexities according to one principle. Moreover, theory is usually prescriptive with no relationship to practice. She believes in no fixed method since every work suggests a new approach. In “Critical Fanonism,” Henry Louis Gates analyzes some theoretical positions from different countries and historical contexts that have dealt with colonial and postcolonial discourses. H...