I have a confession to make. I used to hate "theory." I mean, really hate it. It was confusing, it was annoying, and it entirely post-modern--it just didn't have a place in medieval studies.
As you may have guessed, that's not quite indicative of my feelings for Theory at the moment. I'll blame Paul Strohm's
Theory and the Premodern Text for beginning that change. His argument for the validity of applying Theory as undergraduate-me thought of it to the study of medieval literature is a pretty damn convincing one. The thing is, I wonder, to what extent do we actually use Theory---scary, confusing, (post)modern theory--as medievalists?
See, I thought about this, in relation to my own critical approach, and to some of the Very Important theoretical works I've had to read for a class at my Ph.D. program. My own approach is very centered in two critical approaches: one, new historicist, focused on authorship theory and scholasticism, the other, paleographical and codicological. Neither of these approaches is very different or shocking for a medievalist (though, of course, I hope that the way I use them will produce something new and different), in fact, if I were to think back to most of the scholarship I've read when doing my own research, it was largely historicist as well, with a healthy mix of gender and sexuality work (often still historical, at its most basic level) thrown in. And, I know that when I take my theory qualifying exam, written by a committee (more or less) of my choosing, in my specialty, it will likely be skewed towards these historicist and paleographic approaches.
But, in said Ph.D. course with the Very Important theoretical works, we recently read Barthes'
S/Z. And now, I've been wondering how, if at all, we incorporate such a theoretical approach into studying medieval literature--not the rigid application of a specific theoretical structure that I saw from other students in my undergrad/MA programs (the I'm an X-school-of-theory-ist; the grad student discussing textual slippage in an edition of a text with dozens of manuscripts), but the sort of playful application of a system of theoretical codes that are meaningful to
you, not that were meaningful to Barthes or Derrida or Butler? or perhaps not how we do so, but if it's done, and done well.
In other words, I found that I really liked some of the Theory that I'd discovered--at least, I found it interesting, well-reasoned, and asked myself, "So how has this been applied to my discipline?"
That's not to say I can't think of examples of theory used, and used truly well, truly creatively, by medievalists. Michael Drout's paper at Kalamazoo this past May is, I think, an example of exactly this. How frequently, though, is this sort of approach employed?
I don't know that I expect an answer to this. I know it's not a revolutionary discovery, and I doubt that my own research interests will change, though I suppose my theoretical approach may be a bit more open. Either way, though, I suppose I can no longer say that I hate this Theory. I certainly don't think I could defend my undergraduate fancy that Theory had no place in medieval studies.