Karen Raber - Shakespeare and Posthumanist Theory

Shakespeare
and
Posthumanist
Theory

ARDEN SHAKESPEARE AND THEORY

Series Editor: Evelyn Gajowski

AVAILABLE TITLES

Shakespeare and Cultural Materialist Theory Christopher Marlow

Shakespeare and Economic Theory David Hawkes

Shakespeare and Ecocritical Theory Gabriel Egan

Shakespeare and Ecofeminist Theory Rebecca Laroche and Jennifer Munroe

Shakespeare and Feminist Theory Marianne Novy

Shakespeare and New Historicist Theory Neema Parvini

Shakespeare and Psychoanalytic Theory Carolyn Brown

FORTHCOMING TITLES

Shakespeare and Film Theory Scott Hollifield

Shakespeare and Postcolonial Theory Jyotsna Singh

Shakespeare and Presentist Theory Evelyn Gajowski

Shakespeare and Queer Theory Melissa Sanchez

Shakespeare and Race Theory Arthur L. Little, Jr.

Shakespeare
and
Posthumanist
Theory

Karen Raber

Asking questions about literary texts thats literary criticism. Asking Which questions shall we ask about literary texts? thats literary theory. So goes my explanation of the current state of English studies, and Shakespeare studies, in my never-ending attempt to demystify, and simplify, theory for students in my classrooms. Another way to put it is that theory is a systematic account of the nature of literature, the act of writing and the act of reading.

One of the primary responsibilities of any academic discipline whether in the natural sciences, the social sciences or the humanities is to examine its methodologies and tools of analysis. Particularly at a time of great theoretical ferment, such as that which has characterized English studies, and Shakespeare studies, in recent years, it is incumbent upon scholars in a given discipline to provide such reflection and analysis.

We all construct meanings in Shakespeares texts and culture. Shouldering responsibility for our active role in constructing meanings in literary texts, moreover, constitutes a theoretical stance. To the extent that we examine our own critical premises and operations, that theoretical stance requires reflection on our part. It requires honesty, as well. It is thereby a fundamentally radical act. All critical analysis puts into practice a particular set of theoretical premises. Theory occurs from a particular standpoint. There is no critical practice that is somehow devoid of theory. There is no critical practice that is not implicated in theory. A common-sense, transparent encounter with any text is thereby impossible. Indeed, to the extent that theory requires us to question anew that with which we thought we were familiar, that which we thought we understood, theory constitutes a critique of common sense.

Since the advent of postmodernism, the discipline of English studies has undergone a seismic shift. And the discipline of Shakespeare studies has been at the epicentre of this shift. Indeed, it has been Shakespeare scholars who have played a major role in several of the theoretical and critical developments (e.g. new historicism, cultural materialism, presentism) that have shaped the discipline of English studies in recent years. Yet a comprehensive scholarly analysis of these crucial developments has yet to be done, and is long overdue. As the first series to foreground analysis of contemporary theoretical developments in the discipline of Shakespeare studies, Arden Shakespeare and Theory aims to fill a yawning gap.

To the delight of some and the chagrin of others, since 1980 or so, theory has dominated Shakespeare studies. Arden Shakespeare and Theory focuses on the state of the art at the outset of the twenty-first century. For the first time, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical developments that are emerging at the present moment, as well as those that are dominant or residual in Shakespeare studies.

Each volume in the series aims to offer the reader the following components: to provide a clear definition of a particular theory; to explain its key concepts; to trace its major developments, theorists and critics; to perform a reading of a Shakespeare text; to elucidate a specific theorys intersection with or relationship to other theories; to situate it in the context of contemporary political, social and economic developments; to analyse its significance in Shakespeare studies; and to suggest resources for further investigation. Authors of individual volumes thereby attempt to strike a balance, bringing their unique expertise, experience, and perspectives to bear upon particular theories while simultaneously fulfilling the common purpose of the series. Individual volumes in the series are devoted to elucidating particular theoretical perspectives, such as cultural materialism, ecocriticism, ecofeminism, economic theory, feminism, film theory, new historicism, posthumanism, psychoanalysis and queer theory.

Arden Shakespeare and Theory aims to enable scholars, teachers and students alike to define their own theoretical strategies and refine their own critical practices. And students have as much at stake in these theoretical and critical enterprises in the reading and the writing practices that characterize our discipline as do scholars and teachers. Janus-like, the series looks forward as well as backward, serving as an inspiration and a guide for new work in Shakespeare studies at the outset of the twenty-first century, on the one hand, and providing a retrospective analysis of the intellectual labour that has been accomplished in recent years, on the other.

To return to the beginning: what is at stake in our reading of literary texts? Once we come to understand the various ways in which theory resonates with not only Shakespeares texts, and literary texts, but the so-called real world the world outside the world of the mind, the world outside the world of academia then we come to understand that theory is capable of powerfully enriching not only our reading of Shakespeares texts, and literary texts, but our lives.

* * *

I am indebted to David Avital, Publisher at Bloomsbury Academic, who was instrumental in developing the idea of the Arden Shakespeare and Theory series. I am also grateful to Margaret Bartley and Mark Dudgeon, publishers for the Arden Shakespeare, for their guidance and support throughout the development of this Series.

Evelyn Gajowski

Series Editor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

First, Id like to thank Evelyn Gajowski for offering me the opportunity to contribute this volume to the Arden Shakespeare and Theory series, and I thank her and Dorothy Vanderford for their helpful comments on a draft of the project. Thanks also to Debapriya Sarkar for her responses to a version of McPherson is the glue that holds this assemblage together and makes it all worthwhile.

Bruno Latours 1993 We Have Never Been Modern analyses the modern constitution (the set of principles and beliefs on which the whole premise of modernity is based) bequeathed to us by figures like Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes who began the process of purification that we have come to assume defines modernity. The effect of that unwritten constitution is to create a perceived abyss between science and the social, or nature and culture, by scrupulously policing the boundaries between domains and forbidding them from mixing. The confusion of categories is branded as archaic, part of the bad old days before we became modern. But, as Latour argues, these category boundaries and binaries are and have always been a fiction: the same coproduction of nature and culture that characterized premodern thought continued after Boyle and Hobbes as well, throughout the Enlightenment and well into the twentieth century. It was merely obscured by the constitutions imposed blindness: we tell ourselves that we have overcome the messy and unsystematic superstitions of the past, and that science, technology and the human or social sciences have been liberated from the bondage of religion, myth and magic; they have been elevated and rationalized for the betterment of humanity. Latour points out that the costs of enforcing that illusion of freedom, however, have been incalculable, involving irreparable crimes against the natural and cultural worlds, as well as against the self (125).