De Man “Return to Philology” Questions
1. With what dicisplines and fields does De Man ally literary studies?
2. Which forms of theory does De Man claim are compatible with the “didactics” of literature?
3. What and who does De Man say that Walter Jackson Bate claims is responsible for the decline of literary teaching? Be specific.
4. What does De Man learn from the teaching of HUM 6 in the 1950s?
5. What rule did Reuben Brower give to students of HUM 6?
6. What does De Man mean when he says “[t]he profession is littered with the books that the students of Reuben Brower failed to write” (24)?
7. What approach doe De Man advocate instead of aesthetic appreciation for the reading of literature?
8. Why does De Man say that the “turn to theory occurred as a return to philology”?
9. How does De Man characterize Derrida’s method or practice of reading literature?
10. Why, according to De Man, is the return to philology so threatening?
11. Summarize De Man’s take on Kant and what Kantian thought has enabled in the discipline of literary studies?
12. What question does literary theory ask of Kantian thought?
13. How does De Man say literature should be taught?