American Studies—Beyond the Crisis?: Recent Redefinitions and the Meaning of Theory, History, and Practical Criticism

Abstract

Since its beginning, the American Studies community has been remarkably uneasy about the role and meaning theoretical thinking about its premises and objectives should have in its work. Even more than the individual disciplines in the humanities and the social sciences, the American Studies movement has again and again felt compelled to justify its existence and its aims, to develop a “method” or “philosophy” for its pursuits. But these attempts at theory more often than not have resulted in a glorification of practical or substantive work, or in an identification of its rationale with a few books by its major scholars. In the most recent time of “crisis,” the traditional opposition of “theory” to “practice” seems to have been confirmed, in one way or another, not only on a national scale but in its international perspective. In a recent interview, Henry Nash Smith, using two articles by young German scholars as a starting point, endorsed the old view that “practice is much more important” in America and that, “almost by instinct, in this country we are less, far less theoretical than the Germans.” It should be mentioned that, ironically, contributions to a theoretical definition of American Studies became far more numerous in the United States just when the younger German scholars began to turn from theoretical debates to substantive work, which shows that Smith's “instinctual” distinction actually prevents us from realizing the fundamental historical differences in the development and the significance of the interaction of theory and practice in the two countries.