Midterm Portfolio: Spirally Theory Stuff

I encountered a substantial amount of issues while formatting this diagram and found that the best way to post it would be through a link. If you could excuse the minor inconvenience, you'll find my diagram here. Click at your leisure.

In some ways, I've attempted to complicate notions of a linear dialogue through my representation of the theorists we've read so far. By this, I mean to say that, rather than attempt to construct a dialectical space (as we'd see in a family tree or March Madness bracket), I've placed each theorist on a circular plain. Why this space, as opposed to a more convenient and traditional linear timeline? The hope is that, when reviewing this diagram, one gets the sense that theorists are not engaged in a struggle of wills. No one theorist is better than another (you're welcome, Wordsworth), though some may have better concepts and arguments than others (sorry, Wordsworth). I would argue that the critical theory is still relevant to readers of text because we are not working towards a singular truth. It would be ridiculous to maintain that Plato leads to the final theorist in the Norton and we reach the end (or pinnacle) of theory through this progression. On the contrary, these theorists are utilized in a wide array of dialogues, meaning that a dialectic is arbitrary (though advantageous).

For the purpose of classifying each theorist, I've structured movements and theoretical concepts within designated areas (the specter of Hegel, it seems, is everywhere). Each of these groupings has been given a tiny, color-coded theorist, where:

Orange represents Classical theory
Gold represents Hermeneutic theory
Turquoise represents Medieval theory
Red represents Enlightenment theory
Green represents Romantic theory
Gray represents Marxist theory
Purple represents Structuralist theory
Blue represents New Critical theory
Yellow represent Freudian theory
Pink represents Feminist theory

The first five designated areas (from Classical to Romantic) pay more attention to time than the other five (Marxism to Feminism), which is why the latter areas have been spaced out and given a haphazard order. Though this may seem to undermine my diagram, I believe it brings to light the complexities inherent in a structured idea of theory. de Pizan, for instance, obviously belongs within a Medieval sphere, but her movement is far outside of said sphere. Emerson, Coleridge, and Wordsworth, though each employ Romantic arguments, write on subjects that are not intrinsically linked to Hegel or Schleiermacher (the last of which probably deserves to be in the second area, anyway). See how convenience can complicate?

This is not to say that groupings are completely unreasonable. Indeed, many of these theorists possess a casual relationship to one another, and will often comment upon or reference the work of their counterparts. Yet, to view them only in this light does a great disservice to theory. What is presented, then, is a depiction of these theorists in a cyclical conversation, one where theory is consistently revolving and deferring. What is at the center of this vortex? Perhaps it is inspiration, or truth, or whatever you'd like to call it. Personally, I'd like to think that the center represents our attempt to best understand the world.

Feel free to comment on what you think of this diagram. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on whether or not the representation works or if there are ways to better our understanding of theory outside of a progressing dialectic.