Last updated

In literary criticism and cultural studies, postcritique is the attempt to find new forms of reading and interpretation that go beyond the methods of critique, critical theory, and ideological criticism. Such methods have been characterized as a "hermeneutics of suspicion" by Paul Ricœur and as a "paranoid" or suspicious style of reading by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Proponents of post-critique argue that the interpretive practices associated with these ways of reading are now unlikely to yield useful or even interesting results. As Rita Felski and Elizabeth S. Anker put it in the introduction to Critique and Postcritique, "the intellectual or political payoff of interrogating, demystifying, and defamiliarizing is no longer quite so self-evident." [1] A postcritical reading of a literary text might instead emphasize emotion or affect, or describe various other phenomenological or aesthetic dimensions of the reader's experience. At other times, it might focus on issues of reception, explore philosophical insights gleaned via the process of reading, pose formalist questions of the text, or seek to resolve a "sense of confusion." [2]


Importantly, postcritique is not a straightforward repudiation of critique, but instead seeks to supplement it with new interpretative practices. It views critique as being valuable in certain situations, but inadequate in others. As Felski claims in The Uses of Literature, critical and postcritical readings can and should coexist. "In the long run," she argues, "we should all heed Ricœur’s advice to combine a willingness to suspect with an eagerness to listen; there is no reason why our readings cannot blend analysis and attachment, criticism and love." [3] Felski is careful to point out, in her later study The Limits of Critique, that her argument "is not conceived as a polemic against critique." [4] In a similar spirit, Christopher Castiglia claims that critique can be salvaged if scholars renounce "critiquiness," which he associates with smug knowingness and thoroughgoing skepticism. [5]

Postcritical approaches to texts are often experimental, concerned with discovering new styles, postures, and stances of reading, as well as "testing out new possibilities and intellectual alternatives" to the standard operations of critique. [6] According to Matthew Mullins, postcritique has important implications for understanding the broader role and purpose of the humanities. He claims that it offers practitioners both "positive language and methods from which to make a case for why the humanities matter at a moment when higher education faces threats from forces such a privatization and utilitarianism." [7]


According to the French philosopher Paul Ricœur, the style of thinking associated with critique began with the work of Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. [8] Though radically diverse in their interpretations of Western culture, these three "masters of suspicion" [9] argued for a totalizing, systematic theory that probed below the surface of culture to locate deeper structural truths. For Marx, economic relations shaped all aspects of social life. For Nietzsche, received morality and commonplace beliefs were deeply suspect, and required rigorous interrogation. And for Freud, the unconscious mind shaped thought and behaviour in profound ways. Rita Felski notes that for Ricœur, these thinkers are "the creators of a new art of interpreting." [10] Ricœur's characterization of "the hermeneutics of suspicion" occupies a central position within the field of postcritique.

Eve Kosofky Sedgwick built on Ricœur's theory to develop her ideas around "paranoid reading" and "reparative reading." [11] Sedgwick called on critics to abandon the "dramas of exposure" that so often motivate textual interpretation, and instead emphasize the various beneficial roles that texts can play within particular readers' lives. [12] Rita Felski has argued that Sedwick's account of reparative reading calls for "a stance that looks to a work of art for solace and replenishment rather than viewing it as something to be interrogated and indicted." [13]

Bruno Latour, in his influential article “Why is Critique Running Out of Steam?" argues that critique is no longer able to offer politically progressive readings of texts, since its methods have been coopted by right-wing interests. He claims that the rise of conspiracy theories and conspiratorial thinking means that the dominant mode of enquiry entailed within the "hermeneutics of suspicion" can no longer be relied on to dismantle power structures. [14] Felski builds on such ideas to expose the many limitations associated with critique. In developing the set of ideas that comprise postcritique, Rita Felski has said that she has been "deeply influenced by the work of Bruno Latour." [15]

The work of all three thinkers has been crucial to the development of postcritique.

Principles and practice

At its heart, postcritique seeks to find ways of reading that offer alternatives to critique. It is motivated by the search for more sophisticated accounts of how specific readers engage with specific texts. As Felski claims in The Uses of Literature, "[w]e are sorely in need of richer and deeper accounts of how selves interact with texts." [16] The practitioners of this project define critique in broad terms. Felski, for instance, views critique as comprising "symptomatic reading, ideology critique, Foucauldian historicism," as well as "various techniques of scanning texts for signs of transgression or resistance.” [17] In response, she offers various other frameworks for reading, including those centered on recognition, enchantment, shock, and knowledge. [3] In so doing, she mounts an argument for "the value of literature" that seeks to avoid "falling into truisms and platitudes, sentimentality and Schwärmerei." [18]

Similarly, Timothy Bewes has articulated a postcritical mode of reading that stands in opposition to Judith Fetterley's influential theory of resistant reading. Bewes instead uses the work of Louis Althusser, Walter Benjamin, Alain Badiou, Paul Ricœur, and Gilles Deleuze to suggest that "under current historical conditions the most pressing injunction is not to read 'against the grain' but to read with it." [19] This congruent reading stance, according to Bewes, offers many new interpretive possibilities.

Using the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Toril Moi argues that it is possible to overcome the traps of critique by understanding that "that there is no need to think of texts and language as hiding something." [20] She argues that "claims about hiddenness and depth in literary criticism are empty" and instead encourages literary critics to write about an "encounter with the literary text" that is based on a "willingness to look and see, to pay maximal attention to the words on the page." [21]

Davide Panagia has argued that postcritical methods are a means of recapturing the pleasures of textual criticism and interpretation. He suggests that realising the truth of Felski's claim that "aesthetic works have nothing to hide and that there is no ghost in the machine" will allow the field of literary studies to "reacquire the pleasures of criticism." [22]

Examples of postcritical readings

Postcritical readings can focus on a diverse range of textual qualities, and reveal various forms of knowledge. Tobias Skiveren, for instance, has argued that Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Between the World and Me (2015) can be read as an instance of literature serving as a "useful technology for – using Bruno Latour's phrase – 'learning to be affected' by the lives of others." [23] Rita Felski, in The Uses of Literature, reads Manuel Puig’s Kiss of the Spider Woman as "an exercise in aesthetic re-education," [24] and C. Namwali Serpell has outlined a phenomenological, postcritical reading of Jim Thompson’s The Killer Inside Me (1952) that exposes the limitations of purely ideological interpretations of the novel. [25] Likewise, Katrin Röder has experimented with postcritical forms of interpretation in an analysis of T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets . [26]


Contemporary literary critics associated with postcritique include Toril Moi, Rita Felski, Elizabeth S. Anker, Matthew Mullins, Christopher Castiglia, Russ Castronovo, Simon During, Jennifer Fleissner, Eric Hayot, Heather K. Love, John Michael, Ellen Rooney, C. Namwali Serpell, Sharon Marcus, Tobias Skiveren, Colin Davis, Deidre Lynch, Timothy Bewes, and Stephen Best.

There are also a range of earlier critics who have been labelled as important precursors to this mode of literary criticism. Felski lists Ludwig Wittgenstein, Stanley Cavell, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Michael Polanyi, Paul Ricœur, Bruno Latour and Jacques Rancière as proto-postcritical figures. [27] Other important literary and intellectual antecedents include C.S. Lewis, George Steiner, Pierre Bayard, Susan Sontag, [28] Manny Farber, [29] Louis Althusser, [19] Walter Benjamin, [19] Alain Badiou, [19] Gilles Deleuze, [19] F.R. Leavis, John Bayley, [30] John Guillory, [31] Michel Foucault, [32] Theodore Adorno, [32] Michel Serres, [32] Carlos Castaneda, [32] and Steven Connor.

Opposition to postcritique

The claims and reading practices associated with postcritique have been criticized by a number of scholars. The literary critic Bruce Robbins has taken issue with many aspects of postcritique. He argues that the guiding assumptions of critics working in this field are characterized by "shameless caricature." [33] In a response to The Limits of Critique published in PMLA in 2017, he took issue with the way that Felski's book is overwhelmingly concerned with "faultfinding" in the field of literary criticism. [34] Elsewhere, he claims that "critique is a creature of its fantasies," which can only be sustained by mischaracterizing a range of earlier movements in literary criticism, and by presenting various straw-man arguments. "In what real landscape does this monster of pure negativity lurk?" Robbins asks. "Are there really teachers of literature out there who do nothing all day but interrogate, demystify, and unmask?" [33] Robbins also finds "a passive aggressive tone" in the work of many postcritical scholars, along with an "extreme self-satisfaction with their beliefs, attachments, and feelings (which can't be disputed) and with the comfortable perch in the world where divine providence has seen fit to place them." [35]

Robbins has also claimed that postcritical practices invariably embrace political quietism. He suggests that "the post-critiquers have dislodged and disrespected the experience of African Americans, for whom paranoia is a perfectly acceptable language for the experience of systemic racial injustice. As it is for the experience of other marginalized communities, including queers, women, immigrants, and a range of racial minorities." [36]

Likewise, Merve Emre has claimed that Rita Felski and other scholars associated with postcritique overstate the dangers and limitations of paranoid reading, based on a misunderstanding of Sedgwick's argument. [37] She argues that critique remains a legitimate style of reading, with the ability to inspire social action, calling for "a different idea of paranoid reading [...] that emphasize[s] its performative ability to convert convert suspicious aesthetic detachment into social action." [37]

Several critics have also been suspicious of Felski's use of Actor-network theory (or ANT), which she adopts from the work of Bruno Latour. Ross Poncock considers this position needlessly reactionary, [38] while Erin Schreiner has wondered about its compatibility with the new reading practices of postcritique. [39] Similarly, Dan Weiskopf suggests that Latour's model is not "much of an advance" on critique, and points out that it is "a little hard to square this slightly wonky scientism with her call for a renaissance of humanistic values in criticism." [40] For Weiskopf, Actor-network theory is an example of the kind of theoretical framework that "run[s] counter to the impulse that drives criticism in the first place, which is to record the private, idiosyncratic act of figuring out for oneself what one thinks and feels about an artwork." [41]

Eric Hayot points out that some postcritical readings have implicitly called for “a new messiah who will reconstitute the very structures of faith and belief that the death of Theory destroyed in the first place.” [42] Elsewhere, Hayot has noted that the most strident advocates of postcritique tend to be middle-aged, tenured university professors, which he argues is a problem for the development of this reading practice. He warns that "[s]cholars who find themselves, in midlife, disappointed by the empty promises of the methods and ideas that so inspired them as young people ought to be profoundly suspicious of themselves. They ought to ask whether it is possible that their own psycho-biological position is governing their sense of the history of ideas, or of the political world more generally." [43]

Finally, since critique is often synonymous with critical theory, many scholars have warned against a too-hasty retreat from various theoretical frameworks designed for the analysis of literature and culture.

Relevance to other disciplines

Matthew Mullins has claimed that postcritique has important implications for understanding the continual important and relevance of the humanities. [44] He argues that it provides both "positive language and methods from which to make a case for why the humanities matter," implying that its methods might be adopted by scholars in many adjacent disciplines. [44] Together with its adoption in literary studies and cultural theory, postcritical practices have also been taken up by other Humanities scholars. Erin Schreiner, for instance, has considered how scholars writing on the history of ideas might "learn from, and contribute to, this nascent movement towards a 'post-critical' sensibility," and proposes ways in which "the topics historians of ideas pursue can become more aligned with the concerns of post-critical theorists." [45] Similarly, Kathryn Fleishman has explored the relevance of postcritical ideas for an understanding of contemporary US politics, arguing that "postcritique is uniquely positioned to help us read and resist in our current political milieu," [46] while Maite Marciano has proposed the relevance of postcritique to the field of American Studies. [47] Similarly, Ismail Muhammad has considered some of the applications that postcritical practices might have within the field of the visual arts, particularly art criticism. [48] Ulf Schulenberg, in his book Marxism, Pragmatism, and Postmetaphysics, explores what postcritique might have to offer the fields of philosophy and political philosophy. [49]

Postcritique has also influenced the field of International Relations. Jonathan Luke Austin leads a project titled "Post-Critical IR" at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. This project seeks to repurpose the tools of postcritical reading to address what it takes to be key failures within the field of IR theory, including the charge that IR is "contributing to today’s post-truth era and its panoply of socio-political abuses." [50] Austin's work here has been specifically focused around developing conceptualisations of critical companionship, [51] exploring the nature of critical rhetorical styles in world politics, [52] the relevance of material-technological praxis to critical change-making, [53] and beyond. The introduction of post-critique to IR has - most prominently - provoked a field wide rethinking of the status of critical interventions more broadly in the field.

Postcritical reading approaches have also been adopted by scholars working in the fields of sociology, [54] social justice, [55] Social science, [56] critical race studies, [57] and religious studies. [58]

See also

Related Research Articles

Post-structuralism is either a continuation or a rejection of the intellectual project that preceded it—structuralism. Structuralism proposes that one may understand human culture by means of a structure—modeled on language —that differs from concrete reality and from abstract ideas—a "third order" that mediates between the two. Post-structuralist authors all present different critiques of structuralism, but common themes include the rejection of the self-sufficiency of structuralism, and an interrogation of the binary oppositions that constitute its structures. Post-structuralism discards the idea of interpreting text or world with in pre-established socially constructed structures. Writers whose works are often characterised as post-structuralist include: Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler, Jean Baudrillard, Julia Kristeva, and Jürgen Habermas, although many theorists who have been called "post-structuralist" have rejected the label.

Structuralism Theory that elements of human culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure

In sociology, anthropology, and linguistics, structuralism is the methodology that implies elements of human culture must be understood by way of their relationship to a broader, overarching system or structure. It works to uncover the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel. Alternatively, as summarized by philosopher Simon Blackburn, structuralism is "the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure".

Feminist literary criticism is literary criticism informed by feminist theory, or more broadly, by the politics of feminism. It uses the principles and ideology of feminism to critique the language of literature. This school of thought seeks to analyze and describe the ways in which literature portrays the narrative of male domination by exploring the economic, social, political, and psychological forces embedded within literature. This way of thinking and criticizing works can be said to have changed the way literary texts are viewed and studied, as well as changing and expanding the canon of what is commonly taught. It is used a lot in Greek myths.

Literary criticism Study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature

Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. Modern literary criticism is often influenced by literary theory, which is the philosophical discussion of literature's goals and methods. Though the two activities are closely related, literary critics are not always, and have not always been, theorists.

Jacques Rancière French philosopher

Jacques Rancière is a French philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at European Graduate School in Saas-Fee and former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII: Vincennes—Saint-Denis who came to prominence when he co-authored Reading Capital (1968), with the structuralist Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser.

Fredric Jameson American academic

Fredric Jameson is an American literary critic, philosopher and Marxist political theorist. He is best known for his analysis of contemporary cultural trends, particularly his analysis of postmodernity and capitalism. Jameson's best-known books include Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991) and The Political Unconscious (1981).

Bruno Latour French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist

Bruno Latour is a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. He is especially known for his work in the field of science and technology studies (STS). After teaching at the École des Mines de Paris from 1982 to 2006, he became Professor at Sciences Po Paris (2006–2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017. He was also a Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics.

Jean Paul Gustave Ricœur was a French philosopher best known for combining phenomenological description with hermeneutics. As such, his thought is within the same tradition as other major hermeneutic phenomenologists, Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer. In 2000, he was awarded the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy for having "revolutionized the methods of hermeneutic phenomenology, expanding the study of textual interpretation to include the broad yet concrete domains of mythology, biblical exegesis, psychoanalysis, theory of metaphor, and narrative theory."

<i>Against Interpretation</i> collection of essays by Susan Sontag

Against Interpretation is a collection of essays by Susan Sontag published in 1966. It includes some of Sontag's best-known works, including "On Style," and the eponymous essay "Against Interpretation." In the latter, Sontag argues that in the new approach to aesthetics the spiritual importance of art is being replaced by the emphasis on the intellect. Rather than recognizing great creative works as possible sources of energy, she argues, contemporary critics were all too often taking art's transcendental power for granted, and focusing instead on their own intellectually constructed abstractions like "form" and "content." In effect, she wrote, interpretation had become "the intellect's revenge upon art." The essay famously finishes with the words, "in place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art". The book was a finalist for the Arts and Letters category of the National Book Award

Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships. All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present. Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans. ANT holds that social forces do not exist in themselves, and therefore cannot be used to explain social phenomena. Instead, strictly empirical analysis should be undertaken to "describe" rather than "explain" social activity. Only after this can one introduce the concept of social forces, and only as an abstract theoretical concept, not something which genuinely exists in the world. Although it is best known for its controversial insistence on the capacity of nonhumans to act or participate in systems or networks or both, ANT is also associated with forceful critiques of conventional and critical sociology. Developed by science and technology studies (STS) scholars Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, the sociologist John Law, and others, it can more technically be described as a "material-semiotic" method. This means that it maps relations that are simultaneously material and semiotic. It assumes that many relations are both material and semiotic.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick American academic

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick was an American academic scholar in the fields of gender studies, queer theory, and critical theory. Sedgwick published several books considered "groundbreaking" in the field of queer theory, including Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (1985), Epistemology of the Closet (1990), and Tendencies (1993). Her critical writings helped create the field of queer studies. Her works reflect an interest in a range of issues, including queer performativity; experimental critical writing; the works of Marcel Proust; non-Lacanian psychoanalysis; artists' books; Buddhism and pedagogy; the affective theories of Silvan Tomkins and Melanie Klein; and material culture, especially textiles and texture.

"The Death of the Author" is a 1967 essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes (1915–1980). Barthes' essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated. The title is a pun on Le Morte d'Arthur, a 15th-century compilation of smaller Arthurian legend stories, written by Sir Thomas Malory.

Toril Moi Norwegian academic

Toril Moi is James B. Duke Professor of Literature and Romance Studies and Professor of English, Philosophy and Theatre Studies at Duke University. Moi is also the Director of the Center for Philosophy, Arts, and Literature at Duke. As an undergraduate, she attended University of Bergen, where she studied in the Literature Department. Previously she held positions as a lecturer in French at the University of Oxford and as Director of the Center for Feminist Research at the University of Bergen, Norway. She lived in Oxford, United Kingdom from 1979 to 1989. Moi lives in North Carolina. She works on feminist theory and women's writing; on the intersections of literature, philosophy and aesthetics; and is fundamentally concerned with "finding ways of reading literature with philosophy and philosophy with literature without reducing the one to the other."

Sheldon I. Pollock is a scholar of Sanskrit, the intellectual and literary history of India, and comparative intellectual history. He is currently the Arvind Raghunathan Professor of South Asian Studies at the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies at Columbia University. He was the general editor of the Clay Sanskrit Library and is the founding editor of the Murty Classical Library of India.

Nikolas Kompridis Canadian philosopher

Nikolas Kompridis is a Canadian philosopher and political theorist. His major published work addresses the direction and orientation of Frankfurt School critical theory; the legacy of philosophical romanticism; and the aesthetic dimension(s) of politics. His writing touches on a variety of issues in social and political thought, aesthetics, and the philosophy of culture, often in terms of re-worked concepts of receptivity and world disclosure—a paradigm he calls "reflective disclosure".

Rita Felski is an academic and critic, who holds the William R. Kenan Jr. Professorship of English at the University of Virginia and is a former editor of New Literary History. She is also Niels Bohr Professor at the University of Southern Denmark (2016-2021).

<i>The Foundations of Psychoanalysis</i>

The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique is a 1984 book by the philosopher Adolf Grünbaum, in which the author offers a philosophical critique of the work of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. The book was first published in the United States by the University of California Press. Grünbaum evaluates the status of psychoanalysis as a natural science, criticizes the method of free association and Freud's theory of dreams, and discusses the psychoanalytic theory of paranoia. He argues that Freud, in his efforts to defend psychoanalysis as a method of clinical investigation, employed an argument that Grünbaum refers to as the "Tally Argument"; according to Grünbaum, it rests on the premises that only psychoanalysis can provide patients with correct insight into the unconscious pathogens of their psychoneuroses and that such insight is necessary for successful treatment of neurotic patients. Grünbaum argues that the argument suffers from major problems. Grünbaum also criticizes the views of psychoanalysis put forward by other philosophers, including the hermeneutic interpretations propounded by Jürgen Habermas and Paul Ricœur, as well as Karl Popper's position that psychoanalytic propositions cannot be disconfirmed and that psychoanalysis is therefore a pseudoscience.

<i>Freud and Philosophy</i> 1965 book by Paul Ricœur

Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation is a 1965 book about Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, by the French philosopher Paul Ricœur. In Freud and Philosophy, Ricœur interprets Freud's work in terms of hermeneutics, the theory of the rules that govern the interpretation of a particular text, and discusses phenomenology, a school of philosophy founded by Edmund Husserl. He addresses questions such as the nature of interpretation in psychoanalysis, the understanding of human nature to which it leads, and the relationship between Freud's interpretation of culture and other interpretations. The book was first published in France by Éditions du Seuil, and in the United States by Yale University Press.

"School of suspicion" is a phrase coined by Paul Ricœur in Freud and Philosophy (1965) to capture a common spirit that pervades the writings of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche, the three "masters of suspicion". This school is defined as a balanced recognition and perception between "explanation" and "understanding" that validates expressions of a representation.

Simon During is a New Zealand-born academic who completed his PhD at the University of Cambridge. In 1983, he joined the English Department at the University of Melbourne as a tutor, where, ten years later and after visiting positions at the University of Auckland and the Rhetoric Dept, UC Berkeley, he was appointed to the Robert Wallace chair. After establishing the Cultural Studies, Media and Communications and Publishing programs at Melbourne, he left for Johns Hopkins University in 2001, and taught in the English department there for nine years.


  1. Anker & Felski (2017). "Introduction". In Anker & Felski (ed.). Critique and Postcritique. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 1. ISBN   978-0-8223-7304-9.
  2. Moi, Toril (2017). Revolution of the Ordinary. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 180. ISBN   9780226464442.
  3. 1 2 Felski, Rita (2008-05-16). Uses of Literature. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p. 22. doi:10.1002/9781444302790. ISBN   9781444302790.
  4. Felski, Rita (2015). The Limits of Critique. University of Chicago Press. p. 5. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226294179.001.0001. ISBN   9780226294032.
  5. Castiglia, Christopher (2013-09-01). "Critiquiness". English Language Notes. 51 (2): 79–85. doi:10.1215/00138282-51.2.79. ISSN   0013-8282.
  6. Anker, Elizabeth S. and Felski, Rita (2017). "Introduction". Critique and Postcritique. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 2. ISBN   9780822373049. OCLC   1021102259.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. Mullins, Matthew (2018). "Postcritique". In Di Leo, Jeffrey (ed.). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Literary and Cultural Theory. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. doi:10.5040/9781350012837. ISBN   9781350012806.
  8. Ricoeur, Paul (1970). Freud and Philosophy. Translated by Savage. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 33. ISBN   0300021895.
  9. Ricoeur, Paul (1970). Freud and Philosophy. p. 35. ISBN   0300021895.
  10. Felski, Rita (2015). The Limits of Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 31.
  11. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (2003). "Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, You're So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay Is about You". Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 128. ISBN   978-0-8223-3015-8.
  12. Sedgwick. Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading. p. 8.
  13. Felski, Rita (2015). The Limits of Critique. p. 151.
  14. Latour, Bruno (2004). "Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern". Critical Inquiry. 30 (2): 225–48. doi:10.1086/421123.
  15. Felski, Rita (2015). The Limits of Critique. p. 196.
  16. Felski, Rita. The Uses of Literature. p. 11.
  17. Felski. The Limits of Critique. p. 3.
  18. Felski. The Uses of Literature. p. 22.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 Bewes, T. (2010-01-01). "Reading with the Grain: A New World in Literary Criticism". Differences. 21 (3): 1–33. doi:10.1215/10407391-2010-007. ISSN   1040-7391.
  20. Moi, Toril (2017). "'Nothing Is Hidden': From Confusion to Clarity; or, Wittgenstein on Critique". In Felski & Anker (ed.). Critique and Postcritique. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press. p. 35. ISBN   978-0-8223-6376-7.
  21. Moi, Toril. From Confusion to Clarity. p. 35.
  22. Panagia, Davide. "Davide Panagia reviews The Limits of Critique". Critical Inquiry. Retrieved April 16, 2019.
  23. Skiveren, Tobias (2019), "On Good Listening, Postcritique, and Ta-Nehisi Coates' Affective Testimony", Affect Theory and Literary Critical Practice, Springer International Publishing, pp. 217–233, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97268-8_12, ISBN   9783319972671
  24. Felski, Rita. The Uses of Literature. p. 76.
  25. Serpell, C. Namwali. A Heap of Cliche. p. 154.
  26. Röder, Katrin (2014). "Reparative Reading, Post-structuralist Hermeneutics and T. S. Eliot's Four Quartets". Anglia. 132: 58–77. doi:10.1515/anglia-2014-0004.
  27. Felski, Rita. The Limits of Critique. p. 150.
  28. Felski & Anker. Introduction. p. 16.
  29. "Postcritique Avant La Lettre". Open Space. Retrieved 2019-04-09.
  30. Eagleton, Terry (2017-01-05). "Not Just Anybody". London Review of Books. pp. 35–37. ISSN   0260-9592 . Retrieved 2019-04-18.
  31. Eagleton, Terry. "Not Just Anybody". TLS.
  32. 1 2 3 4 "About Post-Critique". 2017-05-27. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
  33. 1 2 Robbins, Bruce. "Fashion Conscious Phenomenon".Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  34. Robbins, Bruce (2017-03-01). "Not So Well Attached". PMLA. 132 (2): 371–376. doi:10.1632/pmla.2017.132.2.371. ISSN   0030-8129.
  35. Robbins, Bruce. "Fashion Conscious Phenomenon". Academia: 2.
  36. Robbins, Bruce. "Reading Bad". Los Angeles Review of Books. Retrieved 2019-04-15.
  37. 1 2 Emre, Merve (2017). Paraliterary: The Making of Bad Readers in Postwar America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 218. ISBN   9780226473970.
  38. Posnock, Ross (2016). "Review of The Limits of Critique" (PDF). ALH Online Review. Series VI: 1–4.
  39. Schreiner, Erin (November 28, 2016). "Ideas of Attachment: What the "Postcritical Turn" Means for the History of Ideas". The blog of the Journal of the History of Ideas. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  40. Weiskopf, Dan (2016). "Meta-Critic No. 2: How To Live In A Postcritical World, A Review Of Rita Felski, "The Limits Of Critique"". Arts ATL. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  41. Weiskopf. "How to Live in a Poscritical World".
  42. Hayot, Eric. Then and Now. p. 289.
  43. Hayot, Eric. Then and Now. p. 286.
  44. 1 2 Mullins, Matthew. "Postcritique". The Bloomsbury Handbook of Literary and Cultural Theory.
  45. Schreiner, Erin. "Ideas of Attachment: What the "Postcritical Turn" Means for the History of Ideas".
  46. Fleishman, Kathryn (January 16, 2019). "The Statue and the Veil: Postcritique in the Age of Trump". post45. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  47. Marciano, Maïté (December 2018). "Review of Critique and Postcritique". Studies in 20th and 21st Literature: 2–3 via Research Gate.
  48. Muhammad, Ismail (March 14, 2019). "Postcritique Avant La Lettre". Open Space. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  49. Schulenberg, Ulf (2019). "Marxism, Pragmatism, and Postcritique". Marxism, Pragmatism, and Postmetaphysics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp. 141–159. ISBN   978-3-030-11559-3.
  50. "What is Post-Critical IR?". 2018-01-06. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
  51. Austin, Jonathan Luke (2019). "Doing and mediating critique: An invitation to practice companionship". Security Dialogue. 50 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1177/0967010618810925.
  52. Austin, Jonathan Luke (2019). "A Parasitic Critique for International Relations". International Political Sociology. 13 (2): 215–231. doi:10.1093/ips/oly032.
  53. Austin, Jonathan Luke (2019). "Towards an International Political Ergonomics". European Journal of International Relations. 25 (4): 979–1006. doi:10.1177/1354066119842242.
  54. Hennion and Grenier, Antoine and Line (2000). "Sociology of Art: New Stakes in a Post-Critical Time". In Quah and Sales, Stella R. and Arnaud (ed.). The International Handbook of Sociology. London: Sage.
  55. Anker, Elizabeth S. (2017). "Postcritique and Social Justice". American Book Review. 38 (5): 9–10. doi:10.1353/abr.2017.0081.
  56. Jensen, Casper Bruun (2014). "Experiments in Good Faith and Hopefulness: Toward a Postcritical Social Science". Common Knowledge. 20 (2): 337–362. doi:10.1215/0961754X-2422980.
  57. "Race, Thick and Thin". ARCADE. Retrieved 2019-04-25.
  58. "LIT: Literature Interpretation Theory: Special Issue on Religion, Criticism, and the Postcritical". Campaign. Retrieved 2019-04-25.

Further reading