Abstract

The concept of crisis is, as Reinhart Koselleck explains, the fundamental mode of historical interpretation and an expression of the new, modern, sense of time. It involves a decision that is unique and final. There are four possible meanings according to Koselleck: crisis as a decisive point at which action is required, crisis as a point after which everything will be changed forever, crisis as a situation which constantly recurs and generates momentous consequences, and crisis as a historically immanent transitional phase. In each case it is a matter of understanding historical time, of explaining the past, grasping the present, and anticipating the future.When it comes to understanding its own history, by proclaiming its end as a discipline, mourning its death, and debating about the so-called post-theoretical state (Eagleton, Elliott and Attridge, Rabaté, Compagnon, Butler and Gullory, etc.), literary theory is no exception. The concept of crisis is once again used as a point of departure for interpreting the historical condition of literary theory. If philosophy starts with a sense of wonder creating the space for theoretical examination, one must wonder why literary theory relies so heavily on the concept of crisis to explain its own state. What are the consequences of regarding theory through the lenses of crisis? Is it a matter of transforming traumatic Erlebnis into Erfahrung or a symptom of a crisis of interpretation and the self-understanding of literary theory?