Bennett

Responding to various posts (sorry I can't figure out how to tag them correctly): Yeah, I think we are saying much the same thing. We should indeed be self-critical, first and foremost about art. At the end of the day, I think all that the pro-canon faction are saying is that "art matters," and I don't know that anyone's disagreeing with that. Also, for what it's worth: I'd be willing to make the same claim about Twilight that I did about Taco Bell. I hope I haven't come across as advocating literature to the detriment of political economy--I mean, I'm a Marxist! So yes, I agree that Aquinas and Adam Smith are as relevant as Shakespeare or Chaucer; I restricted my examples to the literary because, as lit scholars, that's the part we'll be (primarily) responsible for teaching; in my ideal vision of the liberal-arts college people are also studying philosophy and religion and economics. That said, I do hope--personally--to teach literature in relation to all those things. You know, I think there's a lot of agreement behind all of our (myself included) polemical positioning. I mean, I agree that reality TV is trash, and I agree that there can be enormous value in a critical study of it. Again though, I think the question of aesthetic value is interesting, and not in some narrow pure-art-criticism sense. Succinctly put, I find aesthetics interesting precisely because it operates with a different logic than (e.g.) notions of scientific or economic value, and develops in relation (or opposition) to both of these. I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't just read art as a cipher of latent political or cultural content--i.e., ideology critique--but rather that aesthetics itself has its own political/cultural/economic ramifications, and that we should pay attention to these. (In all this I've been heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School; Adorno's Aesthetic Theory and Marcuse's The Aesthetic Dimension say what I'm trying to say here much better.) I agree that the English (and French, and German) canon was developed as part of an imperial project--again, Marxist here--and that this complicates any educative project. But the question here (which others have also phrased) is this: is culture anything more than a tool of power/imperialism? Or, to recode this in old-school Marxist language: is the superstructure more than the expression of the base? Marxists often face the charge of reducing superstructure to base, but at times I think Foucauldian and post-colonial scholars are more guilty of the charge: essentially, that everything becomes reduced to power structures. Which, if true, is pretty frightening. And deterministic. And self-defeating. (I mean, if Foucault's writings are themselves no more than expressions of the given power structures of his time, then they'd seem to lose all critical/liberating potential.) Anyway I would say that yes, absolutely, culture partakes of power relations--there is no "pure" sphere of art untrammeled by monstrosity--but that it also possesses a critical capacity, and a utopian charge. Otherwise put, that the superstructure can also effect the base, and in multiple ways. I think we have to leave room for art to "speak truth" and not just to be a vessel or conduit of power structures for us to discern and deconstruct. (And from what vantage-point? We are also inside the systems we're critiquing!) Which is a long way of saying: the purpose of education is to build critical literacy, and to explore culture. Said is great.

whoops. Auto-correct turned all my point b's into smiley faces... which is kind of funny.

I voted for--and will argue for--the "revised" canon. Let me say straight up: obviously the canon has been (partially) constructed on racist, sexist, classist and imperialist lines. It is the product of a racist, sexist, classist and imperialist society. Our choices of the canon will be colored by that; the writings of canonical (and for that matter, non-canonical) authors will be colored by that; we can't escape our historical embeddedness. That said, I will make three arguments for the preservation of a (revised, self-critical) canon, two of them pragmatic and one philosophical. 1.) Pragmatically, and once more with feeling: we can't escape our historical embeddedness. Certain texts have had a tremendous influence on our cultural and political development; the impact of the bible (e.g.) colors not just literary texts from Chaucer to Toni Morrison, but also the most fundamental categories in which we think. Even or especially if we wish to transform these modes of thinking (as I do), we need to know what it is we're trying to transform; applying "analytical rigor to epistemes" implies some knowledge of the epistemes we're analyzing, and I would call those works "canonical" which have had a huge role in shaping them. 2.) Again pragmatically, and in all seriousness: what's the alternative? Insofar as an academic discipline is defined (externally) by boundaries and (internally) by a common body of knowledge, I'm not sure what becomes of "literature" as a discipline when we eradicate the canon entirely. (Of course we can--and should--apply a Foucauldian critique to the whole notion of "discipline," but that doesn't mean we can escape the problem.) Without any notion of a common body of knowledge, we become diverse "area specialists" analyzing incommensurable phenomena through incommensurable lenses; what then constitutes literature as a coherent field? There's a tension here between expansiveness and (in)coherence. In recent years, I think we've resolved this tension by replacing a common object of study with a common theoretical framework; what allows the scholar of south-east Asian literature to speak to the scholar of graphic novels is their common knowledge of Foucault or Derrida or whatever. And, I mean, this sort of resolves the problem, but only by replacing a "canon" of (largely) dead European novelists with a "canon" of dead European theorists. The irony being: a) we've canonized the very figures who set out to deconstruct the canon, and we're now analyzing the literatures of various subaltern figures through the lens of an extremely Euro-centric theory, which is arguably still an imperialist project! 3.) Philosophically, I do think we need to hold onto some notion of aesthetic value--and, in contrast to some of the earlier commenters, I think this (i.e., aesthetics) is actually very interesting. Many people have pointed out that there aren't any universally objective criteria through which to establish what constitutes aesthetic value, and that's precisely the point. I mean, if you go back to Kant, you see him struggling with how to make sense of the whole notion of "beauty": on the one hand, it isn't subject to binding empirical laws (x defines the beautiful, object a possesses x, therefore object a is beautiful), on the other, he wants to keep the notion of beauty seperate from that of taste, which he sees as entirely subjective and non-binding. (I.e., I might prefer milk chocolate and you might prefer dark, but it's kind of silly to argue about which is objectively better: it's entirely a question of personal preference.) Kant wants to say that "beauty" is something different than either objective knowledge or subjective taste--and I think he's right. That is, when I say something is beautiful I am making a claim without determinate knowledge which is nevertheless seeking for some sort of universality or "objectivity" beyond mere personal preference. For Kant, though, this is an "objectivity" which upends the usual sense of the term, because a) it's one which emerges immanently from the artwork as opposed to being applied to it externally, and it's one that can't be preemptively determined but only emerges in and through intersubjective debate. In other words, the notion of dynamism and mutability is already enshrined in the very notion of aesthetic judgment! (In that sense, yes, the cannon should shift and change.) TripWillis, I am with you on the fact that literary scholars should not try to act like scientists, with you on Hegel, and with you on critically analyzing the scientific episteme(s). But to deny any merit to aesthetic "value" seems to slip into a hardcore positivism at the moment of critiquing it, suggesting that any notion which can't be empirically determined should be precipitously banished. In contrast, I think the notion of aesthetic value should be maintained precisely because it points to aporias in the scientific episteme (and, relatedly, in Kant's critical project): i.e, to values that seem "meaningful" and yet cannot be empirically determined. (I think this is also the moment where art becomes entwined with ethics and politics: all things banished from the realm of empirical truth, which then take refuge in a newly-constituted, autonomous art as the other of reason.) I could go on, but the point is: a Taco Bell menu might at times be more personally relevant than Shakespeare, I might be able to make as interesting a "reading" of it as Shakespeare, and it might serve as well as Shakespeare as an object of ideology-critique. But I think Shakespeare is indeed more beautiful than the Taco Bell menu, and I have no problem with the seeming coerciveness of that claim. (Sometimes coerciveness is not a bad thing: we try to convince each-other: otherwise what's the point?) Because to dismiss the whole notion of aesthetic value is to ignore what makes art art--what makes it something other than a Taco Bell menu--and I think that's the "value nihilism" which I and others have been finding so disturbing.

Yes. I've had acceptances from Duke (Lit), U Penn (Comp Lit), and Minnesota's Comparative Studies in Discourse and Society, and am in the process of visiting all three schools before making a decision. I actually applied to a mix of comp lit and English programs, and was accepted to 3/4 of my comp programs and 0/3 in English. Not sure if one can extrapolate from that data to assert that comp lit programs are more theory-friendly than English--perhaps it's just a case of my individual background/interests--but it certainly seems plausible. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you for Minnesota! There are some great people there. Timothy Brennan (who teaches in both the English and Comp. Lit departments) is one of my favorite thinkers. (I highly recommend his "Wars of Position," if you haven't read it.) Anyway, great school and great program so I hope it works out. If it doesn't (and I hope it will!) then yeah, I'd recommend thinking about Comp Lit. You could still focus primarily on English literature--most people still choose a "track"--and, insofar as you're working mostly with French theorists, that would already bring in the "comparative" element. Do you speak any other languages? (And, if not, is that something you could work on in this coming year?) Language requirements vary widely from program to program but, for all the ones I've mentioned, a decent intermediate/reading knowledge of one foreign language should be more than enough to get started.

Are you all English or Comp. Lit?

So, I'm comp lit, not English, but my interests trend really heavily towards continental philosophy (in my case mostly Frankfurt School critical theory, aesthetic philosophy, and Kant and Hegel). Have you considered Berkeley Rhetoric, Duke Literature and Stanford's Modern Thought and Literature? All three are pretty heavily theory-oriented and interdisciplinary, and sound like they'd work perfectly with your interests. I'd add in Minnesota's CSDS/CSCL but it looks like you've already applied there. In general, I think Comp Lit departments are more open to "pure" theory than English; the other advantage is that they often get considerably less applicants (I think Duke Lit got around 170 this year; compare to the 500+ for many English programs). Of course many Comp Lit programs have rigorous language requirements, but some--Duke, Minnesota--do not. Anyway, at least based on your list of theorists, I'd suggest that as another possible option. PS - For what it's worth: we all sometimes wonder if we're in the right discipline...

I did my M.A. out of the country, so can't comment on U.S. Loans; I managed to get a scholarship which payed tuition, but still had to cover living expenses. (Which, considering I was only legally entitled to work 10 hours a week, wasn't a given.) All in all it probably put me out $20,000 and yet I wouldn't have traded it for anything; in addition to spending two wonderful years abroad, it also gave me invaluable experience (presenting conference papers, working closely with professors) and taught me more than all 4 years of my B.A. In a field with little to no job security, it's hard to say that an M.A. is "worth it"--obviously it depends on individual resources and personal calculations--but, for what it's worth, I've had acceptances this year at several great places (Duke, Penn, Minnesota) which I'm sure I would *not* have received without the M.A.

Have people here taken some time off before applying? I took off one year between my B.A. and my Master's and then (what will be) two years between that and starting a PhD. I think it's helpful to be able to compare one's academic prospects with those on the open market (in my case, stints as a barista, maitre d' and bookstore employee, and some very sporadic editing/translating work). It's worth examining what those other options are, and how appealing; as someone else here pointed out, my "modest" grad school stipend will be more than I've made from any of those jobs. I guess my point is: while things might be looking grim inside the academy, it's not like the picture is rosy anywhere else (aside from a few isolated sectors, like nursing). Transformations in the global economy are pushing productive labor towards the (former) periphery and away from the core, and--as we've now learned--you can't paper over that loss of jobs with lines of credit. I think this is a hard time in *any* sector. There's two ways of looking at that fact. The pessimistic reading is that, generally speaking, we're all f*cked. The optimistic reading is that we have to fight for the world we want to work, and live, and love in. While the current trend in academia is towards more precarious adjunct work and less full-time jobs, diminished funding, hyper-competition and specialization, etc etc, there's nothing about any of that which is inevitable. If we fought for increased state funding, free public education, and revitalization of the humanities, then the picture would look quite different. (And universal free education, while seemingly politically impossible, is economically quite feasible.) This could be connected to a broader struggle vis à vis the social welfare state, workers' rights, and the importance of the "public" in the face of privatization. (Instead of "publish or perish," we'd have "public or perish!") I guess I'm trying to connect this notion of individual "dream jobs" to a more collective dimension; the point here is that we'll really have to fight--collectively--for whichever dream it is we choose.

Hey all. They flew eight of us down a week ago, and are making six offers; I believe they're in the process of notifying now. That said, I wouldn't give up hope if you've interviewed and haven't heard; I'm guessing you're in a de facto waitlist position and that they'll extend further offers if/when some of those first six decline. Feel free to PM if you want to talk about the program.

It was stressful! And yes, I'm certainly going to the recruitment weekend; in any case I live in PA so it's an easy trip. As to choices, I'm still not sure; I work on Marxism and critical theory so Duke is in some ways a natural fit, but Pennsylvania has a lot going for it as well. Decisions, indeed...

Where else have you been accepted, and what are your thoughts on Penn? (For the record: I'm on the waitlist at Minnesota and am still waiting for a final response from Duke, after 2 rounds of interviews and a visit there last week; Penn is thus my first unambiguous "yes".)

Hi yeah one of them is me. Haven't been very (read: at all) active on these threads previously, because my response to stress is to hole up in a corner. Anyway it was a v. kind e-mail to be followed by a phone call and official (snail-mail) acceptance letter, and an accepted students' weekend in late March.