Popular Culture Review Vol. 20, No. 2, Summer 2009 | Page 13

The Birth of Counter Theory 9 that one seems to always come before the other. Poe’s short story does not need Lacan, Derrida, nor Johnson to produce meaning, while Lacan, Derrida, and Johnson do need Poe to validate their theories.12 And to establish the essential differences between Poe’s short story and the three aforementioned essays (that is to say, between fiction and criticism), the concepts of narrative authority and textual intention might be good places to start; the creation of a fictional universe and that of characters might come to mind as well. In the end, it seems that, in spite of De Man’s affirmation, no one will ever read Poe’s short story as a feminist essay on a deconstructive reading of a psychoanalytical interpretation. We could of course try to read Lacan’s, Derrida’s, and Johnson’s essays as short stories; they just wouldn’t be very entertaining. A direct consequence of the confusion between the object of study and the study itself is the merging of the method with the object, the theme with the approach, and thus, political agendas have appeared as Theories, contributing to further erase the corpus of study behind ideological priorities. The challenges to absolute values brought forward by deconstruction, although doubtlessly beneficial to racial and sexual minorities in times of political correctness, have served to justify purely ideological readings, often accompanied by open, if not unfounded, theoretical declarations. Queer Studies, for instance, have efficiently fused an important theme of research, that of gay, lesbian, and transgendered voices in literature, with an actual method of interpretation. The same can be said of Area Studies, Border Studies, and Disability Studies, which are defined according to the object of their inquiry and do not constitute a set of interpretative principles but rather a very strict thematic orientation; if we are to accept Queer Studies as a method of interpretation, then any text or narration which does not exhibit at least traces of homosexual or transgendered tendencies is automatically excluded from the corpus. Furthermore, any other theme or narrative motif present in the text or the narration is openly ignored as interpretation is reduced to a simple ideological revindication.13 If the confusion between Literature and criticism, as well as the merging of the method with the object of study, have allowed for the production of vast amounts of printed material, which in turn helped in securing tenured university positions, they have also mined the very field in which they were used by legitimizing polysemia and subjectivity, and openly favoring obscurity over clarity in any type of critical inquiry. Theory has become a literary genre in itself, indistinguishable from Literature, which, rather than providing tools for the interpretation of literary texts, has simply taken their place.14 Counter Theory, Relative Synthesis, and Deconceptivism We find ourselves in the difficult position of rejecting the last thirty-odd years of so-called “Critical Theory” which, rather than provide us with methods of textual and narrative interpretation, as Sociology or Structuralism did, has erected a massive wall of intimidating, over-conceptualized discourse between us and our object of study. In order to prevent further deterioration of our field of studies, the first priority of Counter Theory is to rescue the actual corpus of