Oxford Dictionary of Critical Theory. By Ian Buchanan.

Abstract

THE PIVOTAL OBSERVATION that ‘critical theory has leakier borders than most disciplines’ (p. vii) forms the basis of Buchanan’s precise introduction to his Dictionary of Critical Theory. From this initial observation, one can deduce at least two concerns that Buchanan’s project seeks to address: (i) not only does it want to define the concepts, thoughts and thinkers informing the ‘leaky’ term critical theory, but also in doing so, (ii) it seeks to define the field as such, in order to shore up the foundation and plug some of the leaks. This stance is reinforced in the latter of the dictionary’s two entries on the term ‘critical theory’ per se: ‘today the term is also used to refer … to any form of theorizing in the humanities and social sciences … . This has tended to empty the term of any meaning and rendered both its political and methodological concerns invisible’ (p. 101). Buchanan’s dictionary thus seems to be implicitly designed to counter this diagnosis, and as such it is a timely and necessary intervention given that critical theory—alongside many other disciplines in the humanities—is under increasing pressure to justify its raison d’être. As much as such an attempt seems to go against the grain of critical theory—which is inherently doubtful in the face of such founding classifications—the style in which this enterprise is undertaken by Buchanan, in my opinion fully justifies the project. The dictionary does not seek to homogenise or police the boundaries of critical theory, neither does it provide closed off or technical definitions. It rather seeks to widen access to some—at times—very complex thinkers and concepts in a manner that is designed to raise questions as much as provide possible definitions. However, though Buchanan does not mean that definitions should be understood as final, guiding or binding beyond a given purpose, he does believe that they represent a necessary starting point for debate and thought. The Dictionary of Critical Theory reflects this perspective; emphasising—no matter how difficult a thought or concept might be—that we must at least try to define its purpose in seeking to make it accessible to others.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.