©2002 UC Regents. All rights reserved.
UCI Home Page: www.uci.edu.
Comments
on our web site are welcome at ctigsr@uci.edu.
During the past decades scholarly work in the Humanities and Social Sciences
has undergone extraordinary changes in terms both of methodological complexity
and interdisciplinary orientation. Theoretical
considerations once considered extrinsic to most humanistic disciplines and
marginal to their actual practice have become central to research. The theoretical
framework itself, as the basis of methodologies and interpretive strategies
dealing with texts, data, cultural artifacts and practices, has been greatly
refined and elaborated.
This reorientation in the “human sciences” has brought about increased
exchanges among the several disciplines, as literary critics, for example,
have had to deal with philosophical, linguistic and historical problems, and
philosophers and historians with literary, rhetorical, and aesthetic questions.In
the process, a new kind of interdisciplinary practice has emerged, one where
the goal is no longer simply the exchange and augmentation of specialized
skills and data but beyond that an ongoing self-reflection in the light of
shared methodologies and models.
Thus the aim of critical theory is not simply a combination of various disciplines
that would leave traditional differentiations in place. Rather it seeks to
bring about a confrontation among the disciplines with the aim of furthering
their mutual transformation. The term “critical theory” was first
used by the Frankfurt School. While we recognize the significance of that
group’s strong orientation toward the exposure of ideological filiations
in cultural constructs, we would stress as well other senses of “critique”
and “criticism,” and notably, the task of charting and delimiting
the scope of theoretical models both in one’s own practice and in that
of allied disciplines. Critical theory in these senses involves not the mere
application of theory to data but a self-reflexive practice capable of producing
alternative constructs.This will necessarily lead to transformations not only
in the object of analysis but ultimately in the discipline itself.
The name of this field may be justified on at least two grounds: it is critical,
first of all, because one of its functions is to analyze critically and improve
on existing theories and modes of analysis; and, second, because it has as
its goal the development of interpretive strategies that are self-critical,
that is, aware of their own assumptions and limitations and capable of moving
beyond them. Specifically, critical theory seeks to identify forms of blockage
or impasse within the “human sciences” by way of confrontation with
alternative models and practices. Its goal is to enable testing and revision
within a given field in the light of deep-seated commonalties to be found
in the humanities and social sciences and also through the challenge of novel
and alien approaches. Such an orientation clearly requires scholars who not
only have a strong foundation in their own discipline but are also capable
of engaging in the kind of detailed work in other fields that is requisite
for any serious theoretical exploration.
The Critical Theory Institute has defined five broad areas of concentration.
The descriptions in the following pages are intended to exemplify in greater
detail the kinds of cooperative interdisciplinary research that it pursues.
Language and Disciplinary Distinctions
The Problem of Totalization in Art, Literature, and Social Theory
Historiography and Critical Theory
Discourse, Signs, and Institutions
