Democratization of the discipline

intextrovert · April 12, 2010

So, I perhaps subordinate quantitative analysis to qualitative judgments, but I think that they are both capable of critiquing one another, and probably both necessary.

And, voila! Agreement!

So you begin to see the appeal of the dialectic

Indeed. Although I wouldn't say "begin."

And SFW, I'm not really sure what you're asking, either. Of course English is not the only discipline using qualitative methods, and of course it doesn't use them exclusively - Wayne Booth and his Aristotelian ordering and categorizing comes to mind as a somewhat quantitative approach to literature. Maybe literary scholarship tends to value qualitative methods more highly, and it certainly, obviously, lends itself well to that. But as you yourself (or your wife) point out, and as I think Chesterton and I just came to, those categories are more fluid than that, and trying to frame them as oppositional categories doesn't hold up to scrutiny. And when I said "the context from which this debate arose," I was talking about the actual origin of the debate, before you entered - so MJP and wordslinger's exchange about how much we should trust the (ostensibly quantitative, though, as diehtc0ke points out, like anything, wound up in qualitative determinations as well) rankings.

Whether you call it quantitative or qualitative, the methodology of the rankings is clearly - there's no other way to put it - sketchy. But it's what we've got, and to a limited degree can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Though I think some of this thread points to some reasons to hope that cycle may begin to be broken, at least in small ways.

Edited April 12, 2010 by intextrovert

Medievalmaniac · April 12, 2010

I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest and of enjoyment. I have only two small things to contribute - one, a rhetorical question with (admittedly pointless) commentary, and two, a short remark.

The rhetorical question: Who DOES fill out the questionnaire or what-have-you for "America's Top Ranked Graduate Programs"? It seems to me that if this is based on the "data" as reported by schools and on the judgment of scholars and researchers in the field - well, like the Bible, all such materials and perceptions are those of individuals, every individual has an agenda - you all know the drill. We don't really know how this research is conducted. Also, insofar as individual disciplines and subfields within disciplines go - the rankings really don't seem to matter. As we have noted, there are outstanding examples of a strong eighteenth--century studies cohort within an otherwise lackluster department, excellent rhetoric and comp training at a school where medievalists in the English department aren't expected to know Latin, a fabulous experience for students in minority literature in a department where noone in anything prior to 20th century lit would ever want to hang his or her hat. And I think that while the overall ranking of the school can mean something to someone, ultimately people in the field you plan to enter are going to know who you have worked with and who you know, and that's going to work for you more. In other words, if I'm applying for the open medievalist position at State U in the Midwest, and I'm coming from, let's say hypothetically, UNCG, and I've worked with Denise Baker...maybe there are other professors applying for this job from top schools, but if Midwest U has strong religious studies offerings and interdisciplinary work, and I've studied with one of the world's leading experts on Julian of Norwich in addition to working in Middle English, I might well have an advantage over the other applicants, assuming that the department to which I am making application knows who Denise Baker is. That's where (ideally) Denise has sent a letter of support for your application, and the other medievalists in the department have seen this letter and said "Oh, wow, yeah, Denise, she's a leading expert on Julian of Norwich, and we're short a mystics expert, check out this girl carefully". I think it depends to large extent on how the application is vetted, and if it were me I would certainly make sure the other professors teaching in my field and/or subfields got personal copies of my CV prior to my interview, since they're the ones who will know who those I have worked with are and what I'm doing. (Does that even make sense...?) The short point is - the rankings in USN&WR are based on the whole department, and everyone actually already in academia knows that's not a reflection of the reality in many cases, so ultimately, I'd give them more benefit of the doubt.

The remark - English is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative discipline. It is probably the most interdisciplinary of all subjects, because it is so diverse - you have the various world literatures, minority literatures, linguistics, rhetoric and comp, creative writing, comparative literature - in many universities, all lumped together under the main subject heading English. And with so many theoretical schools - postcolonial, psychoanalytical, structuralist, poststructuralist, new historical, formalist, myth, gender, etc. etc. etc. - cognitive approaches to literature deal much more with quantitative data, and many of the form and style schools do as well. Certainly, there is a lot of qualitative work done in textual analysis and comparison as well. I know some professors who are really applying scientific data analysis to literature with some intersting results, especially in terms of cognition/brain function in reading. So, I don't think it's as easy as just making a blanket statement that "English is....(quantitative/qualitative)" and I do think that doing so one way or the other is likely to marginalize at least a quarter of the folks here in this forum, much less in the greater world of English studies. One reason English appeals to me is this diversity of approaches - every time you talk to someone working in some area of English, you learn something you didn't know and see something in a new and different way. It's such a dynamic and fluid discipline!

Edited April 12, 2010 by Medievalmaniac

Strong Flat White · April 12, 2010

...
And SFW, I'm not really sure what you're asking, either.
...

Well, then I'd be happy to clarify (not that anyone asked, but I'll take a stab anyway)!

I think 2 really curious things are going on here. I think you guys are giving me both too much credit, and not enough credit. Interesting, no?

Too much credit: There are veritable essays here rife with theory and name-dropping and all kinds of Foucault references and all manner of qualititative/quantitatve acrobatics that make for a great discussion, surely, but are quite apart from anything I'm inquiring about. So... please carry on if it's a good discussion, but certainly not for my benefit. Much of the discussion assumes methodological philosophies that I wasn't really asking about or commenting on. I will clarify.

Too little credit: For all the thought and energy thrown into these replies, I think there is an underestimation of my grasp of quantitative or qualititative validity. I never suggested that the two were mutually exclusive, which is why I provided my wife's quotation. I felt that I was being read as naive and over-simplistic, which I think is true, so I make the following points: Of course these things aren't mutually exclusive! Of course there is validity on both sides! My ranting against quantitative methods has very little to do with quantitative methods themselves and everything to do with the mentalities that drive them and my own personal experiences and preferences. I will clarify.

Clarification: My question, emboldened by nothing to the contrary until GK came along, was whether I was correct to assume that I could find my qualitative niche in English? I phrased it this way previously, and I think it's a clear enough question. The background to this question bears repeating, apparently, because people are so confused by my inarticulate posts. Let me repeat that qualitative is my own personal preference, and one that I was timid about to begin. I have come to grips with the fact that I can never be a political scientist, and certainly not with the way that field is heading. I mentioned resentment - yes, it's a bitter pill to swallow. I spent 2 degrees getting trained in a field that simply won't work for me. Ouch, who else here can say the same? I'm taking an honest look at myself, as Manatee would ask me to do. So, is all lost? That's my question. I turn to my strengths, and I see nothing but qualitative. I see Humanities broadly, and I see English specifically. Don't give me too much credit, here - I haven't yet learned the jargon. Don't give me too little credit - I do know how to think! Or perhaps not, but I'll lie to myself a little longer in any case.

soxpuppet · April 12, 2010

Well, then I'd be happy to clarify (not that anyone asked, but I'll take a stab anyway)!

I think 2 really curious things are going on here. I think you guys are giving me both too much credit, and not enough credit. Interesting, no?

Too much credit: There are veritable essays here rife with theory and name-dropping and all kinds of Foucault references and all manner of qualititative/quantitatve acrobatics that make for a great discussion, surely, but are quite apart from anything I'm inquiring about. So... please carry on if it's a good discussion, but certainly not for my benefit. Much of the discussion assumes methodological philosophies that I wasn't really asking about or commenting on. I will clarify.

Too little credit: For all the thought and energy thrown into these replies, I think there is an underestimation of my grasp of quantitative or qualititative validity. I never suggested that the two were mutually exclusive, which is why I provided my wife's quotation. I felt that I was being read as naive and over-simplistic, which I think is true, so I make the following points: Of course these things aren't mutually exclusive! Of course there is validity on both sides! My ranting against quantitative methods has very little to do with quantitative methods themselves and everything to do with the mentalities that drive them and my own personal experiences and preferences. I will clarify.

Clarification: My question, emboldened by nothing to the contrary until GK came along, was whether I was correct to assume that I could find my qualitative niche in English? I phrased it this way previously, and I think it's a clear enough question. The background to this question bears repeating, apparently, because people are so confused by my inarticulate posts. Let me repeat that qualitative is my own personal preference, and one that I was timid about to begin. I have come to grips with the fact that I can never be a political scientist, and certainly not with the way that field is heading. I mentioned resentment - yes, it's a bitter pill to swallow. I spent 2 degrees getting trained in a field that simply won't work for me. Ouch, who else here can say the same? I'm taking an honest look at myself, as Manatee would ask me to do. So, is all lost? That's my question. I turn to my strengths, and I see nothing but qualitative. I see Humanities broadly, and I see English specifically. Don't give me too much credit, here - I haven't yet learned the jargon. Don't give me too little credit - I do know how to think! Or perhaps not, but I'll lie to myself a little longer in any case.

I think the root cause of these misunderstandings, both on your part and on the part of others who are giving you "too little" or "too much" credit, is that while you are asking about the possibility of you finding a role in this discipline, the posters who are responding are, for the most part, seeking to engage your question while simultaneously continuing the original discussion. Now, your question isn't entirely off topic, as we could perhaps take your own circumstances as a test of whatever democratization hypothesis we come up with (or assume). Namely, where are the openings in literature studies for those seeking to switch fields? Are they substantial? Fair? On what conditions does a successful switch depend? But your question was asked in a manner that, to my perspective, didn't mesh as well as it could have with the original terms of discussion. It's also difficult for me to envision exactly what kind of work you're hoping to do in Lit if your description of your talents and interests is limited to an assertion that qualitative is your own personal preference. I don't actually understand what you mean- one of Chesterton's best points was that we've been throwing these terms around without indicating what we mean by them. In this sense, your "clarification" isn't clarification at all - it gives more background on your life, but it provides no examples or description of the kind of "qualitative" work you hope to do.

I don't think the jargon was used with any thought to whether you in particular would understand it or not - it was simply employed in the way it frequently is when a group of lit students assumes that other lit students are their target audience. It's simply that this is the way we often like to talk, and a forum for Lit grad prospectives offers a rare opportunity for us to throw out these references and, for the most part, be understood.

In my opinion, you haven't given us enough information of the kind that would really allow us to answer your question - a question we really are NOT qualified to answer to begin with. We're not here to decide whether or not there's a place for you in the profession - the best we can do is help you acquire that place should you decide you deserve one and are willing to strive to achieve it.

Christian O. · April 12, 2010

I have been reading this thread as if you've all been talking with the ghost of Mr. Chesterton himself. Thanks for the great read.

Strong Flat White · April 12, 2010

I think the root cause of these misunderstandings, both on your part and on the part of others who are giving you "too little" or "too much" credit, is that while you are asking about the possibility of you finding a role in this discipline, the posters who are responding are, for the most part, seeking to engage your question while simultaneously continuing the original discussion. Now, your question isn't entirely off topic, as we could perhaps take your own circumstances as a test of whatever democratization hypothesis we come up with (or assume). Namely, where are the openings in literature studies for those seeking to switch fields? Are they substantial? Fair? On what conditions does a successful switch depend? But your question was asked in a manner that, to my perspective, didn't mesh as well as it could have with the original terms of discussion. It's also difficult for me to envision exactly what kind of work you're hoping to do in Lit if your description of your talents and interests is limited to an assertion that qualitative is your own personal preference. I don't actually understand what you mean- one of Chesterton's best points was that we've been throwing these terms around without indicating what we mean by them. In this sense, your "clarification" isn't clarification at all - it gives more background on your life, but it provides no examples or description of the kind of "qualitative" work you hope to do.

I don't think the jargon was used with any thought to whether you in particular would understand it or not - it was simply employed in the way it frequently is when a group of lit students assumes that other lit students are their target audience. It's simply that this is the way we often like to talk, and a forum for Lit grad prospectives offers a rare opportunity for us to throw out these references and, for the most part, be understood.

In my opinion, you haven't given us enough information of the kind that would really allow us to answer your question - a question we really are NOT qualified to answer to begin with. We're not here to decide whether or not there's a place for you in the profession - the best we can do is help you acquire that place should you decide you deserve one and are willing to strive to achieve it.

Thanks, Sox. I think I'll take that as my cue .

The way I do conversation is perhaps a little different. It's really interesting to note how others may engage a question while simultaneously continuing "the original discussion" (which thread shall I trace backward?). That's a neat trick! Where I live on planet earth, I ask questions for the sole purpose of getting answers to them. Also, thanks that my question isn't entirely off topic! I really appreciate your approval. Next time I'll look for more meshiness, that seems to be key in question-asking, an art that clearly English majors alone have mastered. I suppose that I could start a new thread, and speak to myself alone over there, but it just seemed a little pedantic when everyone was right here. I mean, here you guys are - hi guys... hello. Oh well. I can see that you guys are really into this whole democratization thing and rankings and whatever, so I suppose I'm just interrupting. As for the jargon, I can appreciate target audiences and assumptions, which is why I took pains to define myself as an audience member and combat the prevailing assumption. That wasn't, however, clarification, it was.... background on my life! Damn it! I knew that one, can't believe it missed it. Gold star for you, Sox. I've been studying so hard just to keep up with you guys, and I miss something as easy as "clarification." You can only imagine what this does to my GRE verbal. I didn't realize that examples - not background - are the defining characteristics of clarification, but I'm not missing that one again. Commit to memory...

Haven't provided enough info, but then, nobody's asked for any info. I didn't realize my inquiry was lacking, honestly. An honest question: am I really that difficult to discern? Holy hell. From where I sit, my posts are pretty straight-forward and, taken at face value, I don't think that clarificaition is forever in order. I really don't. I'm also not asking for your qualified opinions, just your damn opinions. Pretend we're having a beer, and I say, "Hey Soxpuppet, what do you think about this?" and you're like, "well, Strong Flat White, if that is your real name, I'm not really qualified to say, but in my esteemed opinion..." and I'm like, "oh, cool. Thanks. Mind if I call you Sox? I'll chew on that one..." But that's not possible here. What happens here is a fairly average dude says, "Wow, I'm really enthusiastic about the opportunity to pick all these brains in cyberspace - hey, what do you guys think?!" and in response, you guys say, "I don't really know what you're asking, you're kind of on-topic, but kind of not, you're a circle-jerker, you're a hypocrite, we're not qualified, according to so-and-so theorists, blah blah blah, and your so-called clarification is improperly classified..." Etc. I see what's happening, I'm just getting in the way of your fun! Well, that's what happens when you crash a party, I suppose, the ring leader will show you the door. As tempted as I am to provide some concrete motivations for studying literature, some concrete career objectives (ah, how I salivate!), it's clear where the thread is headed, and that's fine. I'll take my insecurities elsewhere and hope for the best.

I think I will, however, take you up on that offer for placement assistance in the field, assuming of course that I decide I deserve it and am willing to strive to achieve it. It is, of course, axiomatic, that that is the purpose of the board. Not meaningless drivel, but career advancement! I mean, it does give me slight pause, the way you put it, 'cause you sure make it sound like a lot of hard work! Huh, I was, of course, in my fledgling and immature state, expecting a cake walk, but that seems right out! Well, if it's to be hard work, then hard work it is. Gosh. How shall I refer to you when I list you as a reference? Dr. Puppet? Professor S. Puppet? Puppet-in-training? Can I give them a thread to search? Do you have a prospective list of scintillating discussions coming down the pike that I can steer them toward? I want to make sure they get a hold of you. My future in the field... might... just... depend on it!

intextrovert · April 12, 2010

The way I do conversation is perhaps a little different. It's really interesting to note how others may engage a question while simultaneously continuing "the original discussion" (which thread shall I trace backward?). That's a neat trick! Where I live on planet earth, I ask questions for the sole purpose of getting answers to them. Also, thanks that my question isn't entirely off topic! I really appreciate your approval. Next time I'll look for more meshiness, that seems to be key in question-asking, an art that clearly English majors alone have mastered. I suppose that I could start a new thread, and speak to myself alone over there, but it just seemed a little pedantic when everyone was right here. I mean, here you guys are - hi guys... hello. Oh well. I can see that you guys are really into this whole democratization thing and rankings and whatever, so I suppose I'm just interrupting. ...My future in the field... might... just... depend on it!

Wha...? I really can't figure out the tone of this post.

Here's my jargon-free explanation:

Basically, think of these threads as rooms. You enter a room where people you don't know are discussing something with a lot of personal relevance to everyone in the room as well as people outside of it, and interrupt it to ask a question completely and exclusively centered on you. Basically, that question seems to be: "I'm bad at math, and don't like it much. Can I thus be a literary scholar?" We all look at each other perplexed, because we have no idea (especially since we don't know you, much less your work), and don't really see what one has to do with the other anyway. But we want to include you in the conversation, and thus try to reframe your question in terms of something that would have broader implications, for other people aside from you, and also for the conversation we were all having. But it turns out that you don't care about the larger issue and really just want us to talk about you, and answer an unanswerable question. So we then explain that liking qualitative methods over quantitative ones has zilch to do with your aptitude as a literary scholar. Then you get mad, sarcastic, and belligerently drunk (in my head, this is a cocktail party), and yell at the host. Everyone uncomfortably sips on their wine, and probably leaves the room.

Edited April 12, 2010 by intextrovert

PaperChaser · April 12, 2010

Wha...? I really can't figure out the tone of this post.

Here's my jargon-free explanation:

Basically, think of these threads as rooms. You enter a room where people you don't know are discussing something with a lot of personal relevance to everyone in the room as well as people outside of it, and interrupt it to ask a question completely and exclusively centered on you. Basically, that question seems to be: "I'm bad at math, and don't like it much. Can I thus be a literary scholar?" We all look at each other perplexed, because we have no idea (especially since we don't know you, much less your work), and don't really see what one has to do with the other anyway. But we want to include you in the conversation, and thus try to reframe your question in terms of something that would have broader implications, for other people aside from you, and also for the conversation we were all having. But it turns out that you don't care about the larger issue and really just want us to talk about you, and answer an unanswerable question. So we then explain that liking qualitative methods over quantitative ones has zilch to do with your aptitude as a literary scholar. Then you get mad, sarcastic, and belligerently drunk (in my head, this is a cocktail party), and yell at the host. Everyone uncomfortably sips on their wine, and probably leaves the room.

Funny! I guess I would just hide in the bathroom and look for pills to dull the torture of trying to constantly outwit everyone else.

diehtc0ke · April 12, 2010

Funny! I guess I would just hide in the bathroom and look for pills to dull the torture of trying to constantly outwit everyone else.

I get the feeling someone's rewritten Moby Dick from memory on the walls of that bathroom. You wouldn't be safe there either.

spozik · April 12, 2010

Well, SFW, I can understand your frustration. You asked what you thought was a fairly simple question and a conversation with many others ensued, and I guess I could see how you might perceive that your question didn't really get directly answered.

The Humanities in general as a profession are, in general, composed of a constant dialog between scholars about questions that mostly do not have a correct answer. The kind of question you asked is the right kind of question -- it got a lot of people thinking and generated a lot of different ideas. If the conversation in this thread doesn't interest you, I would imagine that you'll find any Humanities department an uncomfortable place.

I'm guessing one of the reasons this happened is that most people had not thought of their graduate study in terms of your question. In general, though, I've found this thread a very engaging response to what you asked. I guess it could be stated more succinctly, but posters have pointed out both the qualitative nature of the social sciences (choosing what data best represent a solution to your question, for example) as well as the many quantitative aspects of "English" as a discipline (to what GK Chesterton has said, I would add studies of word/phrase frequency, placement, etc.)

While some people are certainly drawn to a particular one of the many methodological approaches that exist, most people generate their ideas from reading and responding to texts or other scholarly works. Most people did not arrive at studying literature from the question you posed. In general, looking for a purely qualitative field probably isn't the best way to go about your intellectual pursuits. To answer your question, I don't think you'll find a single discipline that is solely qualitative. You may find some that are more qualitative than others, but there's no black and white answer to your question, which is why the replies end up being so convoluted. I'm in Classics, and I use both quantitative and qualitative analysis all the time. I can't imagine doing purely one or the other. I guess approaches to literature could be different, but I'm not seeing it.

What's really missing here is your interest in the field. What is it, other than looking for an escape from quantitative analysis? There may be a place in the Lit. community for you and your interests, I really don't know and I doubt anyone in this thread can say either. But most people approaching literature are not doing so in such a rigid way, I don't think. If a quantitative assessment will answer the question that has been posed, it will likely be utilized by someone. If a qualitative assessment is warranted, it will be used also.

Medievalmaniac · April 12, 2010

Funny! I guess I would just hide in the bathroom and look for pills to dull the torture of trying to constantly outwit everyone else.

lolol...I would be in the library, because it's a Friday night and there's nobody else there, so I have the stacks all to myself to work on my big term paper/conference presentation while you guys are all pill-popping, wine-sipping, and sorry you even came to the stupid party. ;) (J/K). I'd party with y'all any day...these are seriously some of the best conversations I've had since my last conference.

GK Chesterton · April 12, 2010

@StrongFlatWhite.... What on earth? You're acting like a child and being deliberately obtuse. You have been asked several times to clarify what you mean by "qualitative niche" and have done nothing but mope about how no one is asking you directly. Sorry that the internet is not a role-playing game in which you are the main character?

To respond to your comments/claims/questions that you have advanced here, quite concretely: First, the reason that people are talking about "methodological philosophies" is because that's how you figure out what quantitative and qualitative study means, what their uses might be, and why English might tend towards one or the other as a discipline. You can't just ask "Will I find my qualitative niche in English? I hate the attitude that drives quantitative study in social sciences" and expect to have someone say yes or no; as such, we've asked you to clarify what the attitude you're trying to get away from in social sciences is, and what SPECIFICALLY you are trying to do in a "qualitative niche". Also, since you wrote that you're upset that people are talking about methodological philosophies, here's a quote from you:

I want to first say that I lost sight of nothing: when I began this maelstrom of qualitative/quantitative, it had nothing to do with rankings and everything to do with the field in terms of methodology.

And here's a quote from you just a little bit later, in which you complain that people aren't responding to you

Much of the discussion assumes methodological philosophies that I wasn't really asking about or commenting on.

Soooo... which is it? Obviously you are going to have to tell us what you think qualitative methodology is. One cannot simply read books and call that graduate study of English in the qualitative method - you have to pick out what you're going to read, how you're going to interpret it, what toolkit you're going to use to interpret it, what your aims with an interpretation are, etc. These ARE methodological constraints that you MUST consider if you are going to try and be an English academic.

To address your post at 12:56

I never suggested that the two were mutually exclusive, which is why I provided my wife's quotation. I felt that I was being read as naive and over-simplistic, which I think is true, so I make the following points: Of course these things aren't mutually exclusive! Of course there is validity on both sides! My ranting against quantitative methods has very little to do with quantitative methods themselves and everything to do with the mentalities that drive them and my own personal experiences and preferences. I will clarify.

OK, that's not what mutually exclusive means in this context, nor is it what your wife's quote means. You are fundamentally misunderstanding and, in my opinion, being naive and over-simplistic. It's not that they are separate, distinct methodologies. They are not oppositional in that they are imbricated in one another - there is no clear distinction between them because they are not discrete entities. Clear? That's what everyone has been trying to tell you. I cannot conceive of how one would have a strictly quantitative or strictly qualitative field of study or research. At the risk of infuriating you again with this loopdy-do theoryspeak, this is probably inherent in language itself - we define words negatively, things acquire meaning through difference from one another - you are ALWAYS comparing things when you use language, and you have to work in the abstract to communicate. Thus, it's not simply a matter of going to English and removing all abstractions or divisions or compartmentalizations - although again, I can't even describe to you how there are quantitative elements in English because you refuse to define either term.

Clarification: My question, emboldened by nothing to the contrary until GK came along, was whether I was correct to assume that I could find my qualitative niche in English? I phrased it this way previously, and I think it's a clear enough question. The background to this question bears repeating, apparently, because people are so confused by my inarticulate posts. Let me repeat that qualitative is my own personal preference, and one that I was timid about to begin.

Again, your qualitative niche meaning what? I explicitly asked you to define these terms, and you're acting hurt in every post as if no one is responding to you. How could anyone answer this question without knowing what manner of texts you want to read, what interests you, what methods you would like to use? That isn't actually the same question, by the way - you first asked if English was the last field left that hadn't been penetrated by quantitative analysis. Again, my answer to that (using my terms, in which quantitative implies abstraction for the sake of generalization and comparison) is no.

You tell me what you think qualitative means and what you think quantitative means, and I will tell you if English is strictly qualitative. Deal?

Edited April 12, 2010 by GK Chesterton

soxpuppet · April 12, 2010

Thanks, Sox. I think I'll take that as my cue .

The way I do conversation is perhaps a little different. It's really interesting to note how others may engage a question while simultaneously continuing "the original discussion" (which thread shall I trace backward?). That's a neat trick! Where I live on planet earth, I ask questions for the sole purpose of getting answers to them. Also, thanks that my question isn't entirely off topic! I really appreciate your approval. Next time I'll look for more meshiness, that seems to be key in question-asking, an art that clearly English majors alone have mastered. I suppose that I could start a new thread, and speak to myself alone over there, but it just seemed a little pedantic when everyone was right here. I mean, here you guys are - hi guys... hello. Oh well. I can see that you guys are really into this whole democratization thing and rankings and whatever, so I suppose I'm just interrupting. As for the jargon, I can appreciate target audiences and assumptions, which is why I took pains to define myself as an audience member and combat the prevailing assumption. That wasn't, however, clarification, it was.... background on my life! Damn it! I knew that one, can't believe it missed it. Gold star for you, Sox. I've been studying so hard just to keep up with you guys, and I miss something as easy as "clarification." You can only imagine what this does to my GRE verbal. I didn't realize that examples - not background - are the defining characteristics of clarification, but I'm not missing that one again. Commit to memory...

Haven't provided enough info, but then, nobody's asked for any info. I didn't realize my inquiry was lacking, honestly. An honest question: am I really that difficult to discern? Holy hell. From where I sit, my posts are pretty straight-forward and, taken at face value, I don't think that clarificaition is forever in order. I really don't. I'm also not asking for your qualified opinions, just your damn opinions. Pretend we're having a beer, and I say, "Hey Soxpuppet, what do you think about this?" and you're like, "well, Strong Flat White, if that is your real name, I'm not really qualified to say, but in my esteemed opinion..." and I'm like, "oh, cool. Thanks. Mind if I call you Sox? I'll chew on that one..." But that's not possible here. What happens here is a fairly average dude says, "Wow, I'm really enthusiastic about the opportunity to pick all these brains in cyberspace - hey, what do you guys think?!" and in response, you guys say, "I don't really know what you're asking, you're kind of on-topic, but kind of not, you're a circle-jerker, you're a hypocrite, we're not qualified, according to so-and-so theorists, blah blah blah, and your so-called clarification is improperly classified..." Etc. I see what's happening, I'm just getting in the way of your fun! Well, that's what happens when you crash a party, I suppose, the ring leader will show you the door. As tempted as I am to provide some concrete motivations for studying literature, some concrete career objectives (ah, how I salivate!), it's clear where the thread is headed, and that's fine. I'll take my insecurities elsewhere and hope for the best.

I think I will, however, take you up on that offer for placement assistance in the field, assuming of course that I decide I deserve it and am willing to strive to achieve it. It is, of course, axiomatic, that that is the purpose of the board. Not meaningless drivel, but career advancement! I mean, it does give me slight pause, the way you put it, 'cause you sure make it sound like a lot of hard work! Huh, I was, of course, in my fledgling and immature state, expecting a cake walk, but that seems right out! Well, if it's to be hard work, then hard work it is. Gosh. How shall I refer to you when I list you as a reference? Dr. Puppet? Professor S. Puppet? Puppet-in-training? Can I give them a thread to search? Do you have a prospective list of scintillating discussions coming down the pike that I can steer them toward? I want to make sure they get a hold of you. My future in the field... might... just... depend on it!

Your question, phrased many different ways has been seeking to discover whether or not your qualitative habits of inquiry fit within the English discipline. As there are many kinds of qualitative analysis, I'm simply saying I can't answer that question at all without having a better idea of the kind of project you're hoping to do in English, and your posts in this thread haven't given any indication of that. As long as your response continues to be variations on the same question with no more specificity indicated, how are we going to say? It would be more useful to know things like, what kinds of questions to you like to ask about the texts you read? What kinds of arguments do you like to make about literature, and what kind of evidence do you feel is valid in supporting those arguments? What topics do you like to discuss and on what terms? We could infer things from the mode of argumentation displayed in your posts, perhaps, but not really enough to be helpful to you.

I'll admit the last paragraph of my last post was worded quite uncarefully. What I meant was that I find the value of these forums to be that through our conversations we are often able to help each other learn about the discipline, then find and achieve our place within it. I shouldn't have used the word "profession," and the "assistance" I spoke of was intended to indicate something more along the lines of camaraderie, moral support, and more generally pooling information.

I'm not sure why you're attacking me both for qualifying my opinions and thereby acknowledging their limitations AND assuming a role of unearned authority. I was just trying to point out that if you asked your question in a different way, you'd be more likely to get a helpful answer - not even necessarily from me. There are lots of people on this forum who know far more than I do.

I wasn't asking about your concrete motivations or your concrete career objectives, I just wanted to know HOW YOU READ. When I say it's difficult to envision the WORK you do in lit, well, the WORK of graduate studies in English is LITERARY ANALYSIS. You say you have qualitative skills, well, I am interested: tell us about them. Then we could actually converse, and not just toss out the kind of judgments you get in bar conversation, which, if that's what you're looking for, I'm sorry but I can't oblige.

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

Wha...? I really can't figure out the tone of this post.

Here's my jargon-free explanation:

Basically, think of these threads as rooms. You enter a room where people you don't know are discussing something with a lot of personal relevance to everyone in the room as well as people outside of it, and interrupt it to ask a question completely and exclusively centered on you. Basically, that question seems to be: "I'm bad at math, and don't like it much. Can I thus be a literary scholar?" We all look at each other perplexed, because we have no idea (especially since we don't know you, much less your work), and don't really see what one has to do with the other anyway. But we want to include you in the conversation, and thus try to reframe your question in terms of something that would have broader implications, for other people aside from you, and also for the conversation we were all having. But it turns out that you don't care about the larger issue and really just want us to talk about you, and answer an unanswerable question. So we then explain that liking qualitative methods over quantitative ones has zilch to do with your aptitude as a literary scholar. Then you get mad, sarcastic, and belligerently drunk (in my head, this is a cocktail party), and yell at the host. Everyone uncomfortably sips on their wine, and probably leaves the room.

That's actually gorgeous, thank you!

Well, the tone of my post was indeed sarcastic, but I was also hoping to be funny. Not funny, eh?

Indeed, please throw "self-centered belligerent drunk" onto the list! I happily admit I was interrupting, in fact I believe I said so.

Lastly, you've really answered my questions. I'm happy to see that not everyone has left the room, and now that everyone is paying the petulant child some attention, I will try to respond in kind. It is the least I can do, but I really do appreciate the reply, Intextrovert, and I mean that with no sarcasm. Thank you.

Pamphilia · April 13, 2010

Strong Flat White,

What in the hell? Look, man. I like you. I like your enthusiasm for the literary field, I like your inquisitive nature, I like your passion! I like that your handle references hilarious Kiwi coffee nomenclature. Your "sarcasmo" post, however, was totally uncool. We were having a really nice discussion here in which people--even people who disagree profoundly--were managing to have a productive, engaging, and CIVIL conversation, in which someone even apologized for using harsh-ish rhetoric (thanks, GK--by the way, that was super classy of you and I really appreciated it). This, on the interwebs, is a rare thing indeed. But then for some reason, in the middle of this pleasant yet constructive conversation, you felt the need to resort to mean and sarcastic language simply because someone very respectfully disagreed with you. This really bums me out a lot. Especially because you felt the need to attack Soxpuppet of all people, who is probably the most generous individual you could ever disagree with! She's been a lot more charitable and diplomatic in her responses to some people than I would have been, certainly. (And for the record, I wasn't sure how your questions related to the topic of this thread, either. Perhaps the fact that so many people either piped up to say that they didn't understand your comments/questions indicates something about the way you articulated them, or about their relevance to this subject.)

I am not only bothered by your unnecessarily mean response, but I am bothered by the fact that your instinct upon hearing disagreement or criticism was to get, well, nasty. That is not only uncool, it's something of a red flag. There will ALWAYS be people who disagree with you (and much less kindly than Soxpuppet did). And you know what? That kind of disagreement isn't just something we current and aspiring academics have to deal with. Rather, it is something we THRIVE on. We need disagreement and criticism to learn and develop as scholars. I can't speak for how well your skills, your talents, or your methodological leanings will serve you in your academic pursuits. But I can guarantee you that a habit of lapsing into hostile, sarcastic, insulting rants does not bode well at all.

Maybe this isn't you. Maybe you were just having a bad day and snapped a little. I understand if that's the case, and I sympathize. But your reaction was still uncalled for, and I think you owe Soxpuppet an apology.

Edit: Okay, just saw your new and much nicer post. Thank you for it! However, I'm not taking down this one because I still feel that it's relevant in some ways. I guess you were trying to be funny, though it's clear that I wasn't the only person who didn't get the joke. And I still think you owe Soxpuppet an apology Thank you, though, for your much kinder response. Now let's all be friends again!!

(Penguin friends)

Thanks, Sox. I think I'll take that as my cue .

The way I do conversation is perhaps a little different. It's really interesting to note how others may engage a question while simultaneously continuing "the original discussion" (which thread shall I trace backward?). That's a neat trick! Where I live on planet earth, I ask questions for the sole purpose of getting answers to them. Also, thanks that my question isn't entirely off topic! I really appreciate your approval. Next time I'll look for more meshiness, that seems to be key in question-asking, an art that clearly English majors alone have mastered. I suppose that I could start a new thread, and speak to myself alone over there, but it just seemed a little pedantic when everyone was right here. I mean, here you guys are - hi guys... hello. Oh well. I can see that you guys are really into this whole democratization thing and rankings and whatever, so I suppose I'm just interrupting. As for the jargon, I can appreciate target audiences and assumptions, which is why I took pains to define myself as an audience member and combat the prevailing assumption. That wasn't, however, clarification, it was.... background on my life! Damn it! I knew that one, can't believe it missed it. Gold star for you, Sox. I've been studying so hard just to keep up with you guys, and I miss something as easy as "clarification." You can only imagine what this does to my GRE verbal. I didn't realize that examples - not background - are the defining characteristics of clarification, but I'm not missing that one again. Commit to memory...

Haven't provided enough info, but then, nobody's asked for any info. I didn't realize my inquiry was lacking, honestly. An honest question: am I really that difficult to discern? Holy hell. From where I sit, my posts are pretty straight-forward and, taken at face value, I don't think that clarificaition is forever in order. I really don't. I'm also not asking for your qualified opinions, just your damn opinions. Pretend we're having a beer, and I say, "Hey Soxpuppet, what do you think about this?" and you're like, "well, Strong Flat White, if that is your real name, I'm not really qualified to say, but in my esteemed opinion..." and I'm like, "oh, cool. Thanks. Mind if I call you Sox? I'll chew on that one..." But that's not possible here. What happens here is a fairly average dude says, "Wow, I'm really enthusiastic about the opportunity to pick all these brains in cyberspace - hey, what do you guys think?!" and in response, you guys say, "I don't really know what you're asking, you're kind of on-topic, but kind of not, you're a circle-jerker, you're a hypocrite, we're not qualified, according to so-and-so theorists, blah blah blah, and your so-called clarification is improperly classified..." Etc. I see what's happening, I'm just getting in the way of your fun! Well, that's what happens when you crash a party, I suppose, the ring leader will show you the door. As tempted as I am to provide some concrete motivations for studying literature, some concrete career objectives (ah, how I salivate!), it's clear where the thread is headed, and that's fine. I'll take my insecurities elsewhere and hope for the best.

I think I will, however, take you up on that offer for placement assistance in the field, assuming of course that I decide I deserve it and am willing to strive to achieve it. It is, of course, axiomatic, that that is the purpose of the board. Not meaningless drivel, but career advancement! I mean, it does give me slight pause, the way you put it, 'cause you sure make it sound like a lot of hard work! Huh, I was, of course, in my fledgling and immature state, expecting a cake walk, but that seems right out! Well, if it's to be hard work, then hard work it is. Gosh. How shall I refer to you when I list you as a reference? Dr. Puppet? Professor S. Puppet? Puppet-in-training? Can I give them a thread to search? Do you have a prospective list of scintillating discussions coming down the pike that I can steer them toward? I want to make sure they get a hold of you. My future in the field... might... just... depend on it!

Edited April 13, 2010 by Pamphilia

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

Well, SFW, I can understand your frustration. You asked what you thought was a fairly simple question and a conversation with many others ensued, and I guess I could see how you might perceive that your question didn't really get directly answered.

The Humanities in general as a profession are, in general, composed of a constant dialog between scholars about questions that mostly do not have a correct answer. The kind of question you asked is the right kind of question -- it got a lot of people thinking and generated a lot of different ideas. If the conversation in this thread doesn't interest you, I would imagine that you'll find any Humanities department an uncomfortable place.

I'm guessing one of the reasons this happened is that most people had not thought of their graduate study in terms of your question. In general, though, I've found this thread a very engaging response to what you asked. I guess it could be stated more succinctly, but posters have pointed out both the qualitative nature of the social sciences (choosing what data best represent a solution to your question, for example) as well as the many quantitative aspects of "English" as a discipline (to what GK Chesterton has said, I would add studies of word/phrase frequency, placement, etc.)

While some people are certainly drawn to a particular one of the many methodological approaches that exist, most people generate their ideas from reading and responding to texts or other scholarly works. Most people did not arrive at studying literature from the question you posed. In general, looking for a purely qualitative field probably isn't the best way to go about your intellectual pursuits. To answer your question, I don't think you'll find a single discipline that is solely qualitative. You may find some that are more qualitative than others, but there's no black and white answer to your question, which is why the replies end up being so convoluted. I'm in Classics, and I use both quantitative and qualitative analysis all the time. I can't imagine doing purely one or the other. I guess approaches to literature could be different, but I'm not seeing it.

What's really missing here is your interest in the field. What is it, other than looking for an escape from quantitative analysis? There may be a place in the Lit. community for you and your interests, I really don't know and I doubt anyone in this thread can say either. But most people approaching literature are not doing so in such a rigid way, I don't think. If a quantitative assessment will answer the question that has been posed, it will likely be utilized by someone. If a qualitative assessment is warranted, it will be used also.

In turn and in kind, I thank you, too Spozik. I don't want to hog the conversation, and that I gave off that impression quite frankly sucks ass. So, sorry about that. But yes, I do think that from my point of view the question wasn't necessarily an attempt to just talk about me (ouch). Again, I did aim for humor. Well. Enough about that. I do notice that people are here not just for heightened intellectual conversation, but that some come seeking advice. I have found this forum useful to that end, therefore I thought I would keep it up. I'll make a point, then, to contribute somewhere along the way. Although, nobody will have questions for me, since I don't know jack squat about the field.

In terms of the rest, I am picking up on your "dialogue" language. One of my advisors described this to me, too, and hey - it's new! It really is. I imagine that might blow some of your minds, but it's news to me and I dig it. So, thanks there too.

I had in fact posted interests elsewhere, and given the thoughtful, thorough replies throughout, and having posted largely to this group, I guess I assumed those had been read in other threads. No? OK! That's easy! As a crossover from another field, I'm very interested in nationalism and national idenity - the changing nature of statehood in a globalized world! I'd like to view that through the lens of "modern" novels (I put the " marks around modern because I don't know this to be the proper term for novels written after, say, 1939 [which I have taken to be "postmodern" in an entirely difference sense from what I had originally understood postmodern to be] or even after the end of the Cold War - the big shake up in international order). Short stories and other forms of fiction besides the novel interest me, too, but really it's the novel format that I am interested in. Also - I had mentioned it elsewhere - I do believe that the school sometimes known as "hysterical realism" or "maximalism" could be a good tie-in, here, as well as something I'd like to explore originally, called geographic existentialism.

Yes, it's true that I seek an escape from "new data sets" and "behavioralism" and "international forecasting centers" and "new and improved algorithms" for predicting international chaos, but I've downplayed my intense passion for literature. I should more actively focus on that, rather than an old love spurned. Literature is a big part of my life, and working on it professionally gives me warm tingles in my viscera and jibblets.

I'm hearing the message loud and clear that the divide that I originally mentioned is not only overblown, but actually non-existent. I'm fine with that. Again, I only came at it from the angle that everyone seemed on board with saying "yes" to what I was asking - it surprised me, frankly, and so I asked more pointedly. I'm not surprised at the reaction, it is a bit more reality than I had been getting previously.

And yes. The conversation has been good. The attack on jargon I think got a bit out of proportion, and back in my less belligerent days, I only intended it to make a point about too much/not enough credit, which I think was well-intentioned but horribly misunderstood. Ooops! Sorry....

But enough about MEEE.... tell me about YOU! On with the conversation, please queue the music and bring everyone another round. It's on me.

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

@StrongFlatWhite.... What on earth? You're acting like a child and being deliberately obtuse. You have been asked several times to clarify what you mean by "qualitative niche" and have done nothing but mope about how no one is asking you directly. Sorry that the internet is not a role-playing game in which you are the main character?

To respond to your comments/claims/questions that you have advanced here, quite concretely: First, the reason that people are talking about "methodological philosophies" is because that's how you figure out what quantitative and qualitative study means, what their uses might be, and why English might tend towards one or the other as a discipline. You can't just ask "Will I find my qualitative niche in English? I hate the attitude that drives quantitative study in social sciences" and expect to have someone say yes or no; as such, we've asked you to clarify what the attitude you're trying to get away from in social sciences is, and what SPECIFICALLY you are trying to do in a "qualitative niche". Also, since you wrote that you're upset that people are talking about methodological philosophies, here's a quote from you:

And here's a quote from you just a little bit later, in which you complain that people aren't responding to you

Soooo... which is it? Obviously you are going to have to tell us what you think qualitative methodology is. One cannot simply read books and call that graduate study of English in the qualitative method - you have to pick out what you're going to read, how you're going to interpret it, what toolkit you're going to use to interpret it, what your aims with an interpretation are, etc. These ARE methodological constraints that you MUST consider if you are going to try and be an English academic.

To address your post at 12:56

OK, that's not what mutually exclusive means in this context, nor is it what your wife's quote means. You are fundamentally misunderstanding and, in my opinion, being naive and over-simplistic. It's not that they are separate, distinct methodologies. They are not oppositional in that they are imbricated in one another - there is no clear distinction between them because they are not discrete entities. Clear? That's what everyone has been trying to tell you. I cannot conceive of how one would have a strictly quantitative or strictly qualitative field of study or research. At the risk of infuriating you again with this loopdy-do theoryspeak, this is probably inherent in language itself - we define words negatively, things acquire meaning through difference from one another - you are ALWAYS comparing things when you use language, and you have to work in the abstract to communicate. Thus, it's not simply a matter of going to English and removing all abstractions or divisions or compartmentalizations - although again, I can't even describe to you how there are quantitative elements in English because you refuse to define either term.

Again, your qualitative niche meaning what? I explicitly asked you to define these terms, and you're acting hurt in every post as if no one is responding to you. How could anyone answer this question without knowing what manner of texts you want to read, what interests you, what methods you would like to use? That isn't actually the same question, by the way - you first asked if English was the last field left that hadn't been penetrated by quantitative analysis. Again, my answer to that (using my terms, in which quantitative implies abstraction for the sake of generalization and comparison) is no.

You tell me what you think qualitative means and what you think quantitative means, and I will tell you if English is strictly qualitative. Deal?

Dude, I simply don't know how you can write so much or how I can respond to it all. Let me try brass tacks - I'm going to get straight to the heart (hopefully), and if my previous post doesn't answer some of these questions, let me know, I can come back to it. But sheesh, how do you write so much/fast? I thought I was good! (Humor? No? Oh well).

By qualititative vs. quantitative, I mean to find a field where I can ditch the calculator and relax on my GRE. I mean that conclusive statements are made with judgments and words rather than through empiricism and numbers alone. Yes, I realize that as far as methodologies go, I'm not really speaking to those at all -- and that's where I'm trying to toe a line. I'm not actually meaning to imply that I have any research experience or that I'm talking specifically about a way to approach a particular study, so I've felt the need, actually, to remain vague on that. I'm thinking along the lines of how strange it is that my GRE is probably (quite seriously) both the highest and lowest score submitted when I applied to an IR program. The contrast made me think... I thought. I thought some more. I feel like I'm a language guy, and I'm here for advice. Nothing much more than that, really.

Honestly, I appreciate you putting up with me, and you've struck a deal, but at this point I'm talking myself in circles and I think the question has been pretty thoroughly answered. It's more reality than I was hoping for, but goodness, I need help. If anyone needs help, trust me, it's me! Let me know if I need to return to your post, I fear you're too much for me.

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

Your question, phrased many different ways has been seeking to discover whether or not your qualitative habits of inquiry fit within the English discipline. As there are many kinds of qualitative analysis, I'm simply saying I can't answer that question at all without having a better idea of the kind of project you're hoping to do in English, and your posts in this thread haven't given any indication of that. As long as your response continues to be variations on the same question with no more specificity indicated, how are we going to say? It would be more useful to know things like, what kinds of questions to you like to ask about the texts you read? What kinds of arguments do you like to make about literature, and what kind of evidence do you feel is valid in supporting those arguments? What topics do you like to discuss and on what terms? We could infer things from the mode of argumentation displayed in your posts, perhaps, but not really enough to be helpful to you.

I'll admit the last paragraph of my last post was worded quite uncarefully. What I meant was that I find the value of these forums to be that through our conversations we are often able to help each other learn about the discipline, then find and achieve our place within it. I shouldn't have used the word "profession," and the "assistance" I spoke of was intended to indicate something more along the lines of camaraderie, moral support, and more generally pooling information.

I'm not sure why you're attacking me both for qualifying my opinions and thereby acknowledging their limitations AND assuming a role of unearned authority. I was just trying to point out that if you asked your question in a different way, you'd be more likely to get a helpful answer - not even necessarily from me. There are lots of people on this forum who know far more than I do.

I wasn't asking about your concrete motivations or your concrete career objectives, I just wanted to know HOW YOU READ. When I say it's difficult to envision the WORK you do in lit, well, the WORK of graduate studies in English is LITERARY ANALYSIS. You say you have qualitative skills, well, I am interested: tell us about them. Then we could actually converse, and not just toss out the kind of judgments you get in bar conversation, which, if that's what you're looking for, I'm sorry but I can't oblige.

Note to self: sarcasm generally to be taken as a personal attack! Uh, sorry Soxpuppet, that's not what I had in mind, believe me or no. I thought the beer scene between you and I was comradery in itself. I guess we won't be going for beers anytime soon, but personal attack was not the intention.

The fact that you do qualify - and that everyone here so heavily qualifies - all replies, is actually very optimistic to me. It is somewhat in that vein that I have used "quality."

Work I do? How I read? Honestly, I haven't the foggiest.

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

Strong Flat White,

What in the hell? Look, man. I like you. I like your enthusiasm for the literary field, I like your inquisitive nature, I like your passion! I like that your handle references hilarious Kiwi coffee nomenclature. Your "sarcasmo" post, however, was totally uncool. We were having a really nice discussion here in which people--even people who disagree profoundly--were managing to have a productive, engaging, and CIVIL conversation, in which someone even apologized for using harsh-ish rhetoric (thanks, GK--by the way, that was super classy of you and I really appreciated it). This, on the interwebs, is a rare thing indeed. But then for some reason, in the middle of this pleasant yet constructive conversation, you felt the need to resort to mean and sarcastic language simply because someone very respectfully disagreed with you. This really bums me out a lot. Especially because you felt the need to attack Soxpuppet of all people, who is probably the most generous individual you could ever disagree with! She's been a lot more charitable and diplomatic in her responses to some people than I would have been, certainly. (And for the record, I wasn't sure how your questions related to the topic of this thread, either. Perhaps the fact that so many people either piped up to say that they didn't understand your comments/questions indicates something about the way you articulated them, or about their relevance to this subject.)

I am not only bothered by your unnecessarily mean response, but I am bothered by the fact that your instinct upon hearing disagreement or criticism was to get, well, nasty. That is not only uncool, it's something of a red flag. There will ALWAYS be people who disagree with you (and much less kindly than Soxpuppet did). And you know what? That kind of disagreement isn't just something we current and aspiring academics have to deal with. Rather, it is something we THRIVE on. We need disagreement and criticism to learn and develop as scholars. I can't speak for how well your skills, your talents, or your methodological leanings will serve you in your academic pursuits. But I can guarantee you that a habit of lapsing into hostile, sarcastic, insulting rants does not bode well at all.

Maybe this isn't you. Maybe you were just having a bad day and snapped a little. I understand if that's the case, and I sympathize. But your reaction was still uncalled for, and I think you owe Soxpuppet an apology.

Edit: Okay, just saw your new and much nicer post. Thank you for it! However, I'm not taking down this one because I still feel that it's relevant in some ways. I guess you were trying to be funny, though it's clear that I wasn't the only person who didn't get the joke. And I still think you owe Soxpuppet an apology Thank you, though, for your much kinder response. Now let's all be friends again!!

(Penguin friends)

Thanks, Pamphilia. I am trying to get to everyone as a matter of courtesy, and not much to say here other than, well put, and I hear you all loud and clear. Plus also: Sorry soxpuppet!

Pamphilia · April 13, 2010

Thanks, Pamphilia. I am trying to get to everyone as a matter of courtesy, and not much to say here other than, well put, and I hear you all loud and clear. Plus also: Sorry soxpuppet!

THANKS! I appreciate it very much. Hooray for friendship, and hooray for school!

I happily admit I was interrupting, in fact I believe I said so.

I am not trying to be mean or pushy at all here, but I will say with the friendliest possible intentions that perhaps in the future you start a new thread instead of "interrupting." Not only to help everyone else keep the conversation organized, but so that really kickass threads (like this one, which is SO relevant and so important to many of us) don't get drowned by the "interrupting" topic. I'm not trying to police anyone or be a jerk, and I'm very sorry if I come off as such. This is just a suggestion, and I know I for one would appreciate if all would consider it. Thanks!

I include a joke to lighten the mood, and because I love jokes:

A: Knock, knock.

B: Who's there?

A: Interrupting cow.

B: Interrupting cow wh-

A (interrupting): MOO!

Edited April 13, 2010 by Pamphilia

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

Alright, all. I've done my best to make amends and my time is limited. Short of going through with a fine-tooth comb, ala GK, I don't know what else to do, so here's my plan: I'm going to go over there and sit quietly in the corner thinking about ... stuff (life, literature, New Zealand, the NFL draft, etc) ... and when I have a question about English lit, I'll try to have some semblance of lingo with which to do the asking. Then, when I ask, I'll try to be specific. And I may even find an appropriate thread first! Meantime, if anyone wants to continue chatting on any of the topics (democratization, rankings, globalized lit/identities, the NFL draft, All Blacks Rugby), I will patiently and politely try to follow as you use words and references that I probably won't know, and then I'll educate myself and take some good time to reflect, and if - IF - I have anything meaningful to contribute, you will hear it from me as pleasantly as I will know how to do. Does this work for people, or should I drag my sorry ass back to Florida (Cracker lyrics reference)?

soxpuppet · April 13, 2010

I had in fact posted interests elsewhere, and given the thoughtful, thorough replies throughout, and having posted largely to this group, I guess I assumed those had been read in other threads. No? OK! That's easy! As a crossover from another field, I'm very interested in nationalism and national idenity - the changing nature of statehood in a globalized world! I'd like to view that through the lens of "modern" novels (I put the " marks around modern because I don't know this to be the proper term for novels written after, say, 1939 [which I have taken to be "postmodern" in an entirely difference sense from what I had originally understood postmodern to be] or even after the end of the Cold War - the big shake up in international order). Short stories and other forms of fiction besides the novel interest me, too, but really it's the novel format that I am interested in. Also - I had mentioned it elsewhere - I do believe that the school sometimes known as "hysterical realism" or "maximalism" could be a good tie-in, here, as well as something I'd like to explore originally, called geographic existentialism.

Yes, it's true that I seek an escape from "new data sets" and "behavioralism" and "international forecasting centers" and "new and improved algorithms" for predicting international chaos, but I've downplayed my intense passion for literature. I should more actively focus on that, rather than an old love spurned. Literature is a big part of my life, and working on it professionally gives me warm tingles in my viscera and jibblets.

I'm hearing the message loud and clear that the divide that I originally mentioned is not only overblown, but actually non-existent. I'm fine with that. Again, I only came at it from the angle that everyone seemed on board with saying "yes" to what I was asking - it surprised me, frankly, and so I asked more pointedly. I'm not surprised at the reaction, it is a bit more reality than I had been getting previously.

Short answer, cause honestly I'm a little burnt out on this - sorry I didn't read the other thread thoroughly. I remember when you posted, but as I personally find the quality of posts in this forum to be incredibly uneven and keeping up with all of them to be rather exhausting, I (and most of the people I know well here) tend to read and participate somewhat selectively, often even arbitrarily - and I already kick myself for spending WAY too much time here

In the sense that you describe above, I'd say your qualitative work has the potential to fit right in. I'm so far from your particular subfield that I've not previously even heard the terms "hysterical realism" or "maximalism" (who's jargony now )! I don't know what the current debates are in this area, but what you've described sounds like a position from which it should be possible to join them, and I wish you the best of luck in doing so.

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

Short answer, cause honestly I'm a little burnt out on this - sorry I didn't read the other thread thoroughly. I remember when you posted, but as I personally find the quality of posts in this forum to be incredibly uneven and keeping up with all of them to be rather exhausting, I (and most of the people I know well here) tend to read and participate somewhat selectively, often even arbitrarily - and I already kick myself for spending WAY too much time here

In the sense that you describe above, I'd say your qualitative work has the potential to fit right in. I'm so far from your particular subfield that I've not previously even heard the terms "hysterical realism" or "maximalism" (who's jargony now )! I don't know what the current debates are in this area, but what you've described sounds like a position from which it should be possible to join them, and I wish you the best of luck in doing so.

Sox, also find it cumbersome to wade through everything, and I think it's absolutely fair, then, to allow all of us a degree of selectivity -- and, it's not crazy, I don't think, to suggest that selectivity can be easily mistaken for interruption. I, the great Interruptor, was just trying to be selective, for what it's worth.

Pamphilia - I actually did start another thread re: global lit and hysterical realism, etc., but it died from neglect. I clearly can't keep a thread alive when all I have is questions, no contributions. Sorry, I'm afraid that's what you get with the new guy.. so thanks for being gentle with the new guy.

GK Chesterton · April 13, 2010

"By qualititative vs. quantitative, I mean to find a field where I can ditch the calculator and relax on my GRE. I mean that conclusive statements are made with judgments and words rather than through empiricism and numbers alone. "

I think that if this is your definition, you have made a straw man of social science. I don't know how this definition would apply to archaeology, (most)sociology, geography, history, linguistics, journalism, or communications, all of which are social sciences, or to any of the foundational texts of political or scientific theory. If one reads the foundational political theory texts - Kant, Mill, Locke, Hobbes, etc. or economic texts - Proudhon, Marx, Smith, one will not at any point find a need for calculators, and one will find judgments based solely on words. Further, even contemporary political science does not need to rely on calculators, nor does economics (there is perhaps math involved in economic theory, but as in Keynes, it's not the sort that you can do with a calculator. I hardly think that this is a result of a quantitative approach, but rather implicit in the field which it seeks to explain; claims about economic theories or hypotheses that didn't use numbers would basically come down to a shouting match, no?). Consider political theory: I just wrote a paper about the development of a robust pension system in Finland by analyzing the institutional structure of the Finnish government, historical relations with social actors (unions and employer organizations), and the strength of institutional veto points. At no point was a calculator necessary. There are some claims, to be certain, which one may supplement with empirical data to make an argument. But at their cores, English and Political Science are about making convincing arguments, and using whatever tools are at hand to do so.

I feel as if you are painting with a very wide brush, and perhaps letting your personal distaste for International Relations extend over much broader fields. I think Sox was trying to show you that studying English in grad school is not about reading books and then writing on internet forums; you will have to develop a methodology, you will have to stake claims and explain how you intend to prove them. In the example of nationalist texts which you mentioned (which, I think, raises eyebrows with a number of people here; you are essentially asking a text-book social science question, not a literary one), you will likely need to demonstrate that a significant change HAS occurred in the way novels are written. This will involve picking tropes that you think are significant, arguing for why they're the most significant indicators, demonstrating that they did not exist in novels before globalization and that they do exist afterward.

Strong Flat White · April 13, 2010

"By qualititative vs. quantitative, I mean to find a field where I can ditch the calculator and relax on my GRE. I mean that conclusive statements are made with judgments and words rather than through empiricism and numbers alone. "

I think that if this is your definition, you have made a straw man of social science. I don't know how this definition would apply to archaeology, (most)sociology, geography, history, linguistics, journalism, or communications, all of which are social sciences, or to any of the foundational texts of political or scientific theory. If one reads the foundational political theory texts - Kant, Mill, Locke, Hobbes, etc. or economic texts - Proudhon, Marx, Smith, one will not at any point find a need for calculators, and one will find judgments based solely on words. Further, even contemporary political science does not need to rely on calculators, nor does economics (there is perhaps math involved in economic theory, but as in Keynes, it's not the sort that you can do with a calculator. I hardly think that this is a result of a quantitative approach, but rather implicit in the field which it seeks to explain; claims about economic theories or hypotheses that didn't use numbers would basically come down to a shouting match, no?). Consider political theory: I just wrote a paper about the development of a robust pension system in Finland by analyzing the institutional structure of the Finnish government, historical relations with social actors (unions and employer organizations), and the strength of institutional veto points. At no point was a calculator necessary. There are some claims, to be certain, which one may supplement with empirical data to make an argument. But at their cores, English and Political Science are about making convincing arguments, and using whatever tools are at hand to do so.

I feel as if you are painting with a very wide brush, and perhaps letting your personal distaste for International Relations extend over much broader fields. I think Sox was trying to show you that studying English in grad school is not about reading books and then writing on internet forums; you will have to develop a methodology, you will have to stake claims and explain how you intend to prove them. In the example of nationalist texts which you mentioned (which, I think, raises eyebrows with a number of people here; you are essentially asking a text-book social science question, not a literary one), you will likely need to demonstrate that a significant change HAS occurred in the way novels are written. This will involve picking tropes that you think are significant, arguing for why they're the most significant indicators, demonstrating that they did not exist in novels before globalization and that they do exist afterward.

Thanks, GK.

I feel like I might be misunderstanding all the straw-man accusations, but that's fine. To me, a straw-man is an intentionally fallacious refusal to consider something potentially valid... I fully acknowledge the validity of what I'm trying to avoid, and I don't think I've committed any fallacy. I also think I'm very intentional about my wide brush, and that's fine, too. I have used hyperbole for illustration and point-making, and my "distaste" for IR is actually not distaste for IR at all, it is a distaste for a sharp behavioral turn in a field that was previously going a different direction. God I will miss IR. I love IR. I will always love IR.

I think, lastly, it does and will continue to irk me when people say that studying English in grad school is not about reading books and then writing on internet forums. I humbly but ferociously beg your better judgment, I'm not brilliant, but I'm not a moron. Nor am I new to academia. I understand applying theories and building arguments - that's not a problem, here.

If I raise eyebrows with my interests, that does seem patronizing, GK, if you'll allow me the observation. I've discussed bringing nationalism into play in literature with numerous English academics on the campus where I currently work, and each time, it has not only been greeted with nods of "yep, that's appropriate," but also a lot of enthusiasm. I also know it's not that small of a niche. I plan on taking an "Early Romantics" course in the fall (a survey), which of course has a lot of nationalist literature. That would be an obvious way to go, but as I have a healthy intellectual curiosity about identity in other periods, I'd like to get original. Some dude Pericles-somebody (I amazon-ed it recently) has a book exploring nationalism through the "modernist" novels of Joyce, Conrad, Proulx, and some other person I forget right now. I think that Post-colonialism also offers a rich content to sift through, since, politically speaking, post colonial self-determination used nationalist ideology almost exclusively (in addition to such things as human rights argumentation, which overlap) as its primary justification for independence (we had a good back-and-forth about this in another thread).

I think a really interesting idea would be to take some author or school of lit that has really never entered the "nationalist" discussion by dint of what's obvious about that author alone, and to probe how the national identity of, say, Nabokov, informed his works in both languages, or how someone as psychadelic and gnarly as Pynchon would be informed by - or influence - identity. I recently read an intro to "Three by Irving" in which Terrence des Pres discusses Irving alongside both Pynchon and Vonnegut... Vonnegut actually has an enormous amount to say about nationalism in exactly the way I've always analyzed nationalism (ie, viewing nationalism through the "modernist" lens - not modernist English, but modernist politics, as opposed to say, primordialism, and viewing it as destructive).

I think that school of hysterical realists (Zadie Smith, David Mitchell, Dave Eggers, etc.), would provide a good springboard for looking at these issues in a globalized context, and enough searching across the globe to begin earnest discussion about this fascinating phrase, geographic existentialism.

I think that political theory affords me a very good opportunity, too. I'm glad you mentioned it. I especially think that Utopian/distopian texts are the obvious target here (for me, anyway), but I tend to get bogged down in those, might not be the best personality fit.

Ok, then, your advice for a methodology: "you will likely need to demonstrate that a significant change HAS occurred in the way novels are written. This will involve picking tropes that you think are significant, arguing for why they're the most significant indicators, demonstrating that they did not exist in novels before globalization and that they do exist afterward."

This is terrific! This is exactly what I'm after and gives me a ton to think about. How very productive.

So, GK, what's your bag, baby? What winds your clock?

Sign In

Democratization of the discipline

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Strong Flat White

GK Chesterton

intextrovert

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information