A Question about Theory/Criticism

[Two Espressos]

I agree, you don't have to assign yourself a historical period if your interests can't be categorized that way. Going by subject matter is fine. But to reiterate what most posters have said, in a time where competition for teaching jobs are very high, I wouldn't count on just studying theory, as many students do end up studying theory on top of specializing in a historical field or subject area.

You mentioned that "going by subject matter is fine": do you know of any programs that would be more open to someone doing this?

[Vertigo23]

This might be a bit dated, but here are some suggestions for more theory-oriented programs. This repeats some of what was mentioned earlier: Comp Lit @ Irvine; History of Consciousness @ UCSC; The New School in NYC; SUNY Buffalo; Hopkins' Humanities Program

[rainy_day]

Yeah, your advice corroborates with what others have stated: programs essentially require their students to specialize in a historical period.

I'm still very opposed to this, however. Maybe I'm just being overly recalcitrant; maybe I'll come around eventually.

I'd much rather specialize in a thematic subfield (or sub-subfield) rather than a historical period, so I'm going to research more interdisciplinary degrees as well as philosophy programs.

What thematic subfield(s) are you interested in? I might be able to make some recommendations. If you write about how you just want to focus on theory, it will sound the same as someone saying they just want to focus on literature, unfortuantely. What you are proposing is unconventional, so it'll be important to discuss your interests and objectives with a lot of nuance. (Which you probably already realize.)

There is a certain amount of flexibility re: time/genre concentration in some places, but unfortunaetly the discipline is still structured according to these categories. I would recommend really looking at individual profs in your research of programs, and tailor your SOP to the handful of folks at any given program. (Warning: Don't go somewhere with only one good-looking person, because they might leave on you, and then you're screwed.)

Edited June 7, 2011 by rainy_day

[Two Espressos]

What thematic subfield(s) are you interested in? I might be able to make some recommendations. If you write about how you just want to focus on theory, it will sound the same as someone saying they just want to focus on literature, unfortuantely. What you are proposing is unconventional, so it'll be important to discuss your interests and objectives with a lot of nuance. (Which you probably already realize.)

There is a certain amount of flexibility re: time/genre concentration in some places, but unfortunaetly the discipline is still structured according to these categories. I would recommend really looking at individual profs in your research of programs, and tailor your SOP to the handful of folks at any given program. (Warning: Don't go somewhere with only one good-looking person, because they might leave on you, and then you're screwed.)

I cannot say that I've totally decided what thematic subfield(s) I'd like to specialize in, but I suppose that's a good thing: I'm still an undergraduate and shouldn't limit my focus too much!

Some things that I'm strongly interested in (not sure if these qualify as subfields or not): language and its role in discourse; aesthetics (what makes certain works "good," whether canonicity is possible or not, etc); ethics, especially environmental ethics (more of a philosophy thing, but I figured that I'd list it anyways); literary/critical theory (especially as regards aesthetics and language).

Honestly, I see myself, at this point, as a traditionalist when it comes to aesthetics (I believe that canonicity is possible, and that art is not *entirely* subjective); however, I feel like such a stance is unpopular nowadays, and I worry that many departments will be hostile to my point of view.

Some things that I'm certainly NOT interested in (at least not enough to specialize in): psychoanalysis/psychoanalytic criticism; strict historical periods (medieval, renaissance, etc); composition and rhetoric; cultural studies (I'm lumping in postcolonial criticism and minority studies with this); queer theory.

I realize that my interests are diverse and (probably) incompatible with a specialized course of study. My interest in language has made me consider going for philosophy (Philosophy of Language is popular and growing subfield in the discipline) or linguistics (I find it fascinating), but honestly I'm strongest in English literature (and certainly not prepared, course-wise, for linguistics programs), so going for English seems most natural to me.

Then again, from the advice others have given, perhaps that isn't the case. Maybe I should focus on philosophy or linguistics programs?

What a conundrum! I appreciate any advice you or anyone else on these forums can give.

[Historiogaffe]

I have dedicated today to providing anecdotal evidence on Grad Cafe discussion threads. Round two:

I had never been much of a theory-head, but this past year I took a couple of theory courses. (Not wanting to become a theory-head, I nevertheless wanted to stop having NO theory in my head.) One was pretty hardcore: the prof gave me a bit of an "I pity you" look when she found out I hadn't done any theory prior. The same prof told us near the beginning of the course that, if we wanted to go into academia (she presumed we did as it was an honours seminar), we would have to choose a period to focus on. You need to choose a period in order to sell yourself on the job market. I imagine you need to be able to say, "I study [aspect of critical theory] in [temporal/geographical location]."

That may be partly because, if/when you get a position, you'll need to do 100-level English courses...

Anyway, a friend of mine was told the same thing by a professor at an Ivy. She's big on the Frankfurt School, but has also worked on early American lit, and the prof said, "Okay, early American literature is what you do."

The Norton Anthology of Critical Theory should demonstrate exactly how broad it is to say "I want to do literary theory"; it reflects an above poster's point that literary theory starts with Plato. (And earlier, in Norton's anthology.) Fortunately, the anthology also lists its theorists according to theoretical focus (poco, gender studies, psychoanalysis, etc.) so you might want to give that a look.

[chaussettes]

From what you've said on this thread, it does NOT sound like a linguistics program would be at all the right fit for you, unless you 1) are willing to focus on language/discourse to the exclusion of your other interests, which sound considerable, and 2) find a program that allows a non-theoretical focus (UCLA, for example, has a separate department for applied linguistics). Most linguistics departments, however, are very heavily theoretically oriented, so even if you were admitted (which is certainly possible even without a strong background in linguistics coursework), the core of your courses and the focus of most of your peers' and professors' research would be of very little interest or relevance to you.

[truckbasket]

As you do seem to be all over the place (which is a good place to be while completing your BA), would it be possible for you to try your hand at an extended research project -- maybe an independent study with a professor you like? The reason why is that it might give you a taste of how you'd work with a specialized focus rather than what appears to be a disparate array of possible interests. Writing my undergraduate senior thesis helped to steer me toward the topics than I'm working on now, and I wish that I'd had more opportunities to work on similar projects during undergrad. I'll also go out on a limb and take a guess that you're taking a lot of survey courses (I could be totally wrong about this) -- and if that's the case, it might be advisable to start taking more specialized seminars. Surveys are great (I still love them), but you only get a very superficial glimpse of the subject -- probably not enough to make absolute judgments.

And with that in mind, I'd be curious to see if you can articulate why you're opposed to so many things -- not to list them here, by any means -- but for your own benefit. The only reason I bring this up is because many of the undergrads who I work with are also certain that they dislike a lot of things, but can rarely say why. (It's nearly always for purely emotional reasons rather than determining that a subject's academic value would be of little use to them.) For somebody who wanted to study all of theory, you're certainly writing off a lot of theory and periods in which theory was prominent. I guess my concern is that the humanities, perhaps above all other disciplines, require a large degree of open-mindedness. Whether we like or don't like our subject on an emotional level is moot for what we do, right?

Honestly, I see myself, at this point, as a traditionalist when it comes to aesthetics (I believe that canonicity is possible, and that art is not *entirely* subjective); however, I feel like such a stance is unpopular nowadays, and I worry that many departments will be hostile to my point of view.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but if you're saying what I think you're saying (that the canon is built on formal proficiency), it's a bit of a tenuous connection. Aesthetics is murky at best, and it crosses into canonization with figures like Matthew Arnold and definitions of taste, etc. However, it's pretty commonly understood that canonization is far more political than anything.

Also, be wary of writing off cultural studies so easily as not only does it include an immensity of theoretical approaches (many which cross over into the things you say you like), but it's perhaps the most widely referenced area for interdisciplinary work. And keep in mind marketability: If you were to show up for a job talk and say you're in the humanities but not interested in the influence of culture, I can't imagine that that would go over well at all.

[runonsentence]

truckbasket's advice is great. I'd second the advice to keep an open mind about cultural studies (and rhetorical studies, too) for now, based on your interests in discourse.

[Two Espressos]

As you do seem to be all over the place (which is a good place to be while completing your BA), would it be possible for you to try your hand at an extended research project -- maybe an independent study with a professor you like? The reason why is that it might give you a taste of how you'd work with a specialized focus rather than what appears to be a disparate array of possible interests. Writing my undergraduate senior thesis helped to steer me toward the topics than I'm working on now, and I wish that I'd had more opportunities to work on similar projects during undergrad. I'll also go out on a limb and take a guess that you're taking a lot of survey courses (I could be totally wrong about this) -- and if that's the case, it might be advisable to start taking more specialized seminars. Surveys are great (I still love them), but you only get a very superficial glimpse of the subject -- probably not enough to make absolute judgments.

Yeah, I am really all over the place! I'll admit it. But yes, I'd love to do an independent study; I plan on taking one in the spring semester (I'm on good terms with the Humanities Department Chair and will probably take one with her). Hopefully the independent study will help narrow my focus, produce a great writing sample, and prove intrinsically valuable.

I've taken all the survey courses that my university requires (four); I've also taken two upper-level seminars (one on Chaucer, the other on American poetry). I'm taking two more seminars this fall as well (one on the history of literary criticism, the other on 20th century American drama).

And with that in mind, I'd be curious to see if you can articulate why you're opposed to so many things -- not to list them here, by any means -- but for your own benefit. The only reason I bring this up is because many of the undergrads who I work with are also certain that they dislike a lot of things, but can rarely say why. (It's nearly always for purely emotional reasons rather than determining that a subject's academic value would be of little use to them.) For somebody who wanted to study all of theory, you're certainly writing off a lot of theory and periods in which theory was prominent. I guess my concern is that the humanities, perhaps above all other disciplines, require a large degree of open-mindedness. Whether we like or don't like our subject on an emotional level is moot for what we do, right?

I hope I didn't sound closed-minded!

I'll articulate why I am not interested in certain fields:

Psychoanalysis/psychoanalytic criticism: I personally don't care for this approach to criticism; it doesn't really interest me. Also, isn't psychoanalytic criticism discredited by the psychological field, as the theorists often used (Freud, Lacan) are considered outdated by the psychological community?

Strict historical periods: I think I've elucidated my dislike for this already. I can't see myself being bound by a historical period; it doesn't feel right to me.

Composition/rhetoric: By this, I meant the kind of composition and rhetoric that is studied in composition/rhetoric tracks and programs. I'm not interested in running a writing center (although I do enjoy my job as a writing tutor at my university's writing center). This field doesn't interest me.

Cultural studies: I'm not opposed to considering culture/cultural concerns, but I don't want to focus on this (sub)field of theory. I'm not particularly interested in postcolonial theory/minority studies.

Queer theory: I'm fairly cognizant of the issues that queer theory seeks to address and critique: heterosexual normativity, deviancy, social constructs of sexuality. As a gay person, I feel like these issues are highly important and need to be studied. But I can't see myself focusing on this issue.

I realize my "articulation" for each area is more or less "I'm just not interested in this." Lol I don't really know how else to put it. I can assure you, though, that my disinterest is not emotional.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but if you're saying what I think you're saying (that the canon is built on formal proficiency), it's a bit of a tenuous connection. Aesthetics is murky at best, and it crosses into canonization with figures like Matthew Arnold and definitions of taste, etc. However, it's pretty commonly understood that canonization is far more political than anything.

Also, be wary of writing off cultural studies so easily as not only does it include an immensity of theoretical approaches (many which cross over into the things you say you like), but it's perhaps the most widely referenced area for interdisciplinary work. And keep in mind marketability: If you were to show up for a job talk and say you're in the humanities but not interested in the influence of culture, I can't imagine that that would go over well at all.

I realize that traditionalism (I think that's the right term here?) in regards to the canon/aesthetics is uncanny nowadays. I agree with many of the positions that Harold Bloom espouses (warily, as he is often branded as cantankerous at best, and misogynistic at worst). I realize that canonization is highly suspect. The whole Stanford "Western Culture" debate of the '80s, and its aftermath, proves this. Like you say, "it's pretty commonly understood that canonization is far more political than anything": I wonder if that's really true though? Canonization interests me a lot; I may be entirely wrong in my position upholding *relative* canonicity. It's something that I wish to learn a great deal more about.

Also, I don't wish to write cultural studies off entirely: I'm just not interested in focusing upon it at the graduate level.

Anyways, thanks for your helpful responses! You've given me a lot of great advice.

[truckbasket]

Like you say, "it's pretty commonly understood that canonization is far more political than anything": I wonder if that's really true though? Canonization interests me a lot; I may be entirely wrong in my position upholding *relative* canonicity. It's something that I wish to learn a great deal more about.

I smell an independent study!

[Two Espressos]

I smell an independent study!

Haha, yes, perhaps! It's certainly of interest to me.

[Two Espressos]

From what you've said on this thread, it does NOT sound like a linguistics program would be at all the right fit for you, unless you 1) are willing to focus on language/discourse to the exclusion of your other interests, which sound considerable, and 2) find a program that allows a non-theoretical focus (UCLA, for example, has a separate department for applied linguistics). Most linguistics departments, however, are very heavily theoretically oriented, so even if you were admitted (which is certainly possible even without a strong background in linguistics coursework), the core of your courses and the focus of most of your peers' and professors' research would be of very little interest or relevance to you.

Thanks for the input! Your position echoes mine: linguistics wouldn't be the best fit.

Although language/discourse interests me greatly, I feel like it would be best to approach those issues from an English/literary studies/philosophical point of view.

[rainy_day]

I would be warry of lumping cultural studies and postcolonial theory/critical race theory, etc together. Ven diagram style, there is lots of overlap, but the two operate in different spheres and can take place without the other. Yes, I'm being nit-picky, but better me than an adcomm, right?

In my mind aesthetics is the sub-field to do best develop your ideas re: cannonicity. (Elaine Scarry's On Beauty comes to mind.) An independent study sounds like a really fantastic place to dig into these questions. In order to adequately address these issues, though, you can't ignore cultural studies, etc. without doing a disservice to your own work, as these locations are home to the strongest argument opposing your own. And if aesthetics ends up being your thing, there are lots of people out there interseted in this sub-field, with varying degrees of cultural studies mixed up in their theories.

If you're considering philophy as a good home for your research interests (a field I admittedly know little about), I'd encourage you to take some upper level courses in the discipline, to see how they fit re: your interests. For a while I considered going to into religious studies, and having taken some upper level classes I had both acquired a mentor in the department and had a better sense of the discipline.

[Two Espressos]

I would be warry of lumping cultural studies and postcolonial theory/critical race theory, etc together. Ven diagram style, there is lots of overlap, but the two operate in different spheres and can take place without the other. Yes, I'm being nit-picky, but better me than an adcomm, right?

In my mind aesthetics is the sub-field to do best develop your ideas re: cannonicity. (Elaine Scarry's On Beauty comes to mind.) An independent study sounds like a really fantastic place to dig into these questions. In order to adequately address these issues, though, you can't ignore cultural studies, etc. without doing a disservice to your own work, as these locations are home to the strongest argument opposing your own. And if aesthetics ends up being your thing, there are lots of people out there interseted in this sub-field, with varying degrees of cultural studies mixed up in their theories.

If you're considering philophy as a good home for your research interests (a field I admittedly know little about), I'd encourage you to take some upper level courses in the discipline, to see how they fit re: your interests. For a while I considered going to into religious studies, and having taken some upper level classes I had both acquired a mentor in the department and had a better sense of the discipline.

Yeah aesthetics really interests me! I'd love to do an independent study and focus on issues within the subfield.

I know quite little about aesthetics's place in English departments: would it be conceivable for aesthetics/general theories of value to be my area of specialization in graduate school? If that is too narrow/too unmarketable, could I perhaps bridge aesthetics and my interest in language/discourse? Is that even possible?

Also, I agree that I cannot avoid cultural studies whatsoever. I didn't mean to imply that I never want to read/work with cultural studies--I just don't want to specialize in it.

Having just read (most) of David H. Richter's Falling into Theory, I'm ecstatic about the prospects of literary theory. I agree with his position: we shouldn't reject theory and theoretical differences; we should embrace them.

That being said, I have utmost respect for the schools of theory/criticism that I disagree with.

Thanks for your input!

[rainy_day]

I don't know a ton about aesthetics, but I feel like I'm seeing it everywhere in researching for programs. Doing a search for some theory minded places, and browsing faculty for interests in aesthetics might be an interesting project; then you could read some of their work. Scarry might be a nice summer read, too. I take issue with a lot of her arguments personally, but it's really short and very readable; it might be a good way to explore aesthetics in a more low-key way.

And your interests in langauge definitely seem like they would go nicely with aesthetics. (Also, I'm of the opinion that if you have interests, you will find a way to put them together.) Bourideu's Language and Power might be really interesting to you, too, based on what you've mentioned here. It's a long book, and can feel rrepetitve, but I find the first two chapters fascinating.

Good luck!

[Two Espressos]

I don't know a ton about aesthetics, but I feel like I'm seeing it everywhere in researching for programs. Doing a search for some theory minded places, and browsing faculty for interests in aesthetics might be an interesting project; then you could read some of their work. Scarry might be a nice summer read, too. I take issue with a lot of her arguments personally, but it's really short and very readable; it might be a good way to explore aesthetics in a more low-key way.

And your interests in langauge definitely seem like they would go nicely with aesthetics. (Also, I'm of the opinion that if you have interests, you will find a way to put them together.) Bourideu's Language and Power might be really interesting to you, too, based on what you've mentioned here. It's a long book, and can feel rrepetitve, but I find the first two chapters fascinating.

Good luck!

Ah, I'm glad that you keep seeing it when researching programs! That gives me some hope. I'm definitely going to heavily research programs/faculty interests to help me form a tentative list of prospective schools.

And I'm all for summer reading! Scarry's book sounds very interesting. I'll have to check it out (as well as Bourideu's Language and Power and other aesthetics faculty publications that I can find).

Really, I have a lot of time to explore various aspects of literature/literary theory (I'll be applying for fall of 2013). All the advice I have received thus far has been excellent. Way to go, gradcafe!

[lose one thing]

I'm not quite sure where your perceptions about cultural studies have come from. I'm currently doing an MA in cultural studies (I did my BA in English). The program I am taking is independent of English as it has faculty teaching in the department from 20 different departments ranging from history, English, sociology to geography, kinesiology, and environmental studies. Needless to say, it is a very independent program seeing as how there are such varied backgrounds. When I first read your post I thought that something like a cultural studies program would be right up your alley since we seem to have somewhat similar interests (my research focuses on aesthetics and narrative theory in conjunction with museums). I'm not certain if I'll be continuing with cultural studies for my Phd, but an MA in cultural studies has been, for me, the perfect way to explore my interests outside the confines of rigid literary periods and time-frames.

[Two Espressos]

I'm not quite sure where your perceptions about cultural studies have come from. I'm currently doing an MA in cultural studies (I did my BA in English). The program I am taking is independent of English as it has faculty teaching in the department from 20 different departments ranging from history, English, sociology to geography, kinesiology, and environmental studies. Needless to say, it is a very independent program seeing as how there are such varied backgrounds. When I first read your post I thought that something like a cultural studies program would be right up your alley since we seem to have somewhat similar interests (my research focuses on aesthetics and narrative theory in conjunction with museums). I'm not certain if I'll be continuing with cultural studies for my Phd, but an MA in cultural studies has been, for me, the perfect way to explore my interests outside the confines of rigid literary periods and time-frames.

Well, as an above reader mentioned, cultural studies house "the strongest argument opposing [my] own." I'd imagine that cultural studies students/faculty would be averse to canonization/canonicity, something that (at this point) I feel is possible and necessary (to an extent).

Then again, I'm not an expert in cultural studies; I may be wrong.

At the very least, your post demonstrates the grand diversity and complexity of English programs: it's a great thing!

[runonsentence]

Well, as an above reader mentioned, cultural studies house "the strongest argument opposing [my] own." I'd imagine that cultural studies students/faculty would be averse to canonization/canonicity, something that (at this point) I feel is possible and necessary (to an extent).

Then again, I'm not an expert in cultural studies; I may be wrong.

At the very least, your post demonstrates the grand diversity and complexity of English programs: it's a great thing!

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I was going to make a similar comment about the description of rhet/comp. Writing centers is a small sub-field within the discipline, and it'd be difficult to characterize "the kind of work" done in rhet/comp tracks and departments: some schools are heavily focused on rhetorical theory, while others focus more on pedagogical practice. And rhetorical theory encompasses a huge range of focuses and conceptions in and of itself. Some schools focus on classical and epistemological rhetorics, while others think more socially (perhaps focusing on ethnography or discourse communities) and would more broadly define rhetoric as "making meaning."

At any rate, I don't mean to harp on this, as i realize you're not strongly considering it for your own scholarship. Just wanted to clear the record.

[Two Espressos]

At any rate, I don't mean to harp on this, as i realize you're not strongly considering it for your own scholarship. Just wanted to clear the record.

No problem! I appreciate any and all feedback, even clarifications for my misconceptions.

[JoeySsance]

Yeah, I am really all over the place! I'll admit it. But yes, I'd love to do an independent study; I plan on taking one in the spring semester (I'm on good terms with the Humanities Department Chair and will probably take one with her). Hopefully the independent study will help narrow my focus, produce a great writing sample, and prove intrinsically valuable.

I've taken all the survey courses that my university requires (four); I've also taken two upper-level seminars (one on Chaucer, the other on American poetry). I'm taking two more seminars this fall as well (one on the history of literary criticism, the other on 20th century American drama).

I hope I didn't sound closed-minded!

I'll articulate why I am not interested in certain fields:

Psychoanalysis/psychoanalytic criticism: I personally don't care for this approach to criticism; it doesn't really interest me. Also, isn't psychoanalytic criticism discredited by the psychological field, as the theorists often used (Freud, Lacan) are considered outdated by the psychological community?

Strict historical periods: I think I've elucidated my dislike for this already. I can't see myself being bound by a historical period; it doesn't feel right to me.

Composition/rhetoric: By this, I meant the kind of composition and rhetoric that is studied in composition/rhetoric tracks and programs. I'm not interested in running a writing center (although I do enjoy my job as a writing tutor at my university's writing center). This field doesn't interest me.

Cultural studies: I'm not opposed to considering culture/cultural concerns, but I don't want to focus on this (sub)field of theory. I'm not particularly interested in postcolonial theory/minority studies.

Queer theory: I'm fairly cognizant of the issues that queer theory seeks to address and critique: heterosexual normativity, deviancy, social constructs of sexuality. As a gay person, I feel like these issues are highly important and need to be studied. But I can't see myself focusing on this issue.

I realize my "articulation" for each area is more or less "I'm just not interested in this." Lol I don't really know how else to put it. I can assure you, though, that my disinterest is not emotional.

I realize that traditionalism (I think that's the right term here?) in regards to the canon/aesthetics is uncanny nowadays. I agree with many of the positions that Harold Bloom espouses (warily, as he is often branded as cantankerous at best, and misogynistic at worst). I realize that canonization is highly suspect. The whole Stanford "Western Culture" debate of the '80s, and its aftermath, proves this. Like you say, "it's pretty commonly understood that canonization is far more political than anything": I wonder if that's really true though? Canonization interests me a lot; I may be entirely wrong in my position upholding *relative* canonicity. It's something that I wish to learn a great deal more about.

Also, I don't wish to write cultural studies off entirely: I'm just not interested in focusing upon it at the graduate level.

Anyways, thanks for your helpful responses! You've given me a lot of great advice.

Hi Two Espressos! It's always a pleasure to encounter a fellow theory enthusiast! I have some advice and constructive criticisms for you and I hope you realize that they're grounded in my genuine enthusiasm for and encouragement of your theoretical interests. I apologize in advance for the length of my post! I studied French literature in undergrad, at Princeton, and will soon be starting a PhD in the same field at Harvard. When I declared as a French major in undergrad, I ended up forging my own "theory track" which proved to be a rewarding interdisciplinary endeavor. I was able to take classes in big "traditional" disciplines like Comparative Literature, Anthropology, Sociology, English, Politics as well as in smaller programs like women, gender and sexuality studies, race and ethnic studies, etc. I was fortunate to have very supportive advisers who encouraged my interdisciplinary approach. I should note that in my field, one can't really avoid specializing in a particular period. As tenuous and fraught with inconsistencies as labels and categories can be, the job market nevertheless relentlessly particularizes scholars. At the moment, I see myself focusing, broadly speaking, on 20th century and contemporary French and Francophone literature and theory while also considering 19th century French and German philosophy and criticism. More specifically, I too am interested in the field of aesthetics but also in its relation to politics and epistemology. This doesn't mean that I'm completely shutting out pre-19th century texts, authors and movements. There's no way I could be successful in my field if I did that! In fact, despite my (post-)modernist bent, some of the courses I'm most thrilled about in my new department are in earlier periods, for instance, there's a medieval studies class I'm really curious about because, as one professor described it, it will involve a "reflect[ion] on the complex relation between the so-called "Middle Ages" and the so-called "Renaissance." One could claim that Rabelais is a medieval Renaissance man and his good giants (father and son) a powerful metaphor for the rupture and continuity between two "epistemes" to use Foucault's terminology." This professor knew how to draw me, a student of modern and postmodern theory, into a medieval/Renaissance studies class! I'll admit that I'm probably just unabashedly and voraciously nerdy in that I love and appreciate scholarship in various areas, but the point is, older periods can certainly be relevant and worth considering (even if you don't specialize in them). Another class I'm looking forward to is "Reading the 18th Century Through 21st Century Eyes." But I digress...

More to the point, I can't even get a Masters in my field (much less a PhD) without demonstrating that I understand the breadth and complexities of the French and Francophone literary canon, history, politics and culture from the Middle Ages to the present. If you end up applying to graduate programs in English or Comp Lit, you'll find rather similar expectations, so if you're really averse to period specialization, that's something to consider. However it is possible and - in both of our cases even desirable - to strike a balance between specialization and interdisciplinarity. I would recommend that you consider, on the one hand, the interdisciplinary possibilities in more traditional disciplines like English, Comp Lit and Philosophy, and on the other hand, explicitly interdisciplinary programs. In the latter category, a program I don't think I've seen mentioned on this thread yet (thought it's possible I missed it) is Stanford's Modern Thought and Literature department. Have you looked into it? http://www.stanford.edu/dept/MTL/cgi-bin/drupal/ I think other posters have suggested some great programs to you so far. Also, while it may have been mentioned already, I would (echo others who) encourage you to look into Cornell's School of Criticism and Theory: http://sct.arts.cornell.edu/indexLaunch.php?time=1307839787 It's a summer program rather than a full-time graduate degree-granting program, but it's certainly worth considering at some point in your studies. I hope to participate in it, myself, next summer or the one after! One recommendation I do remember reading and that I support as well is Berkeley's Rhetoric program. I would encourage you to look at traditional and interdisciplinary programs and see if you can pick and choose departments from both sides to come up with a list of potential graduate programs that really excite you as a theory scholar in training.

Like you, I used to be wary of and even to some extent uninterested in specializing in a specific period. I wanted to just focus on "pure theory." Guess what I discovered while pursuing that? There is no such thing as theory in a vacuum! Sure, there are courses that look at theory from a more or less rigid historical or philosophical perspective and if you're interested in that, it's out there (albeit not in the form of an entire department or program devoted solely to that). That being said, no serious literary scholar and critic could afford to avoid interdisciplinary studies, and it seems like you have astutely embraced this possibility, which is wonderful! However, the specific post of yours that I'm citing raised a few pretty big red flags for me. For starters, your interest in canonization is, on the one hand, fascinating and certainly merits further study at the graduate level, but on the other hand, seems to come from a somewhat misinformed vantage point regarding the inherently political and cultural aspects of canonization. While you don't seem interested in focusing on cultural studies, race/gender/sexuality, postcolonialism, minority studies, etc. I would urge you to at least take a few seminars on those topics in grad school (and to start or continue doing so while you're still an undergraduate). I'm sure you realize how much those discourses problematize conventional views concerning canonization but I'm not yet sure that you appreciate the extent to which they could enrich your framework. By ignoring them, at the very least, in the job market you'd risk coming across as a close-minded scholar and at the worst, you risk privileging and perpetuating certain epistemic frameworks of canonization, e.g. Eurocentric/White, male, heteronormative, etc. Yeah, I know, I bet I sound like your typical PC broken record but I just figured you might want to give it a little thought as you pursue your theoretical studies. I'm not averse to studying canonical authors whatsoever... As I mentioned earlier, I will need to continue engaging with them to be successful in my field and I fully intend to do so (and I'm even very excited about it)! I'm not sure if you've come across this term but it might help you understand a bit better where I'm coming from: epistemological humility. Here's a clear definition I found online: "This term is used to refer to an understanding of the limits of an epistemological perspective. Epistemological humility reflects a belief or adherence to an epistemological stance as valid or authoritative, but not complete." (http://www.postmodernpsychology.com/Postmodernism_Dictionary.html) I hope that my work will, at its core, always be epistemologically humble and I believe that it's possible to achieve this even in canon studies only insofar as the canon is approached not solely from the omnipresent normative specter of the dead straight White male perspective but with serious consideration of and engagement and dialogue with the "constitutive outside" voices and experiences without which it doesn't even make sense to speak of a canon in the first place.

Another point I'd like to bring up is your stated unsympathetic position toward and disinterest in certain branches of theoretical inquiry. We can't possibly be interested in and much less fully invest ourselves in every conceivable framework. Fair enough. In my experience, though, a genuine lover and scholar of theory, notwithstanding her/his theoretical preferences, enjoys engaging broadly with other frameworks. Let's start with psychoanalysis. You don't have to "believe in" psychoanalysis to appreciate its tremendous contributions to theory and criticism. I happen to be very sympathetic to Freudian and Lacanian theories of subjectivity and while I understand your reservations, once again, I believe they may be misinformed. Sure, in the fields of psychology and medicine, biological and neurological approaches are viewed as more cutting-edge and scientifically rigorous. However, psychoanalysis is still a respected and useful clinical approach (it hasn't universally been written off as outdated as you suggested). Notwithstanding the debates within the scientific and medical communities, none of that takes away from the incisiveness of psychoanalysis in the realm of literary and critical theory (I'm distinguishing here between clinical/medical psychoanalysis and literary/theoretical psychoanalysis in the humanities even though they do have rich intersections). For a theoretically rigorous yet accessible (yes that sounds like an oxymoron but it is possible!) defense of psychoanalytic theory, I would strongly encourage you to read Joan Copjec's Read My Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists. An author whose work might make psychoanalysis even more palatable for you is Slavoj Žižek. He's very interdisciplinary, like you, and blends psychoanalysis with Marxism, Hegel and other German Idealist philosophers (e.g. Schelling) and also film, politics, current events and pop culture. Žižek is a great theorist to bring up when people argue that the humanities are irrelevant and out of touch with the contemporary world because his work eloquently and amusingly proves otherwise.

And now on to Queer and ethnic studies. I'd like to add that like you, I also don't identify as heterosexual. I understand that you might not feel a need to focus explicitly on Queer theory; it's perfectly alright if it doesn't become your specialization. However, if your interest does indeed lie in canonization, then as I said earlier, if you want to come across as a serious scholar in that particular area, you should not brush off considering the Queer and also racial and ethnic "outsides" - indeed the others - of the canon, even if it means just taking one seminar on Queer studies and another on, say, postcolonial literature. When you say, "I'm not opposed to considering culture/cultural concerns, but I don't want to focus on this (sub)field of theory. I'm not particularly interested in postcolonial theory/minority studies" what I'm sensing is either unacknowledged White privilege (i.e. if you are White) or a just as unfortunate privileging of White and Eurocentric canonical studies regardless of your race. Furthermore, when you admit that "As a gay person, I feel like these issues [e.g. heterosexual normativity, deviancy, social constructs of sexuality] are highly important and need to be studied" but then honestly aver that "I'm not particularly interested in postcolonial theory/minority studies" - which is totally your prerogative, by the way, and I don't mean to invalidate your personal experience - you seem to be saying (if you're White, that is) "if it's pertinent to me, it's important, and if not, it's not worthy of my time and doesn't need to be studied." (As a side note, one doesn't have to be a person of color to understand the ethical urgency to engage with issues in ethnic studies; society sees me as White and yet I'm very committed to race studies)

You said: "I realize my "articulation" for each area is more or less "I'm just not interested in this." Lol I don't really know how else to put it. I can assure you, though, that my disinterest is not emotional." From a psychoanalytic or even a philosophical perspective, I wonder to what extent that's true... That fact that you from your subjective position embody the enunciating "I" precludes any fully objective assertion that you're absolutely emotionally detached. That is to say, that as the speaking "I" you necessarily and inextricably implicate your subjectivity with the issues from which you seem to be distancing yourself. Is your disinterest fully non-emotional? What might be going on for you psychically that pushes you away from these fields? (To be sure, interest in these fields should not by any means be construed as a marker of "normality," whatever that could possibly mean. Indeed one could ask the same of someone like myself, who is very invested in these fields: Why am I so drawn to them?) While I appreciate the sincerity in your position, I'm troubled by what comes across as your perhaps tacit ignorance of your own privilege in society and in academia. If you're not White - as entitled as you are not to be interested in ethnic studies, regardless of your race - while it's good that you at least acknowledge that it's a legitimate discourse, I'd encourage you to engage with it just a little further, again, considering your stated interest in studying canonization. If you turn a blind eye to ethnic and racial concerns, regardless of your race, as a scholar, you'd be shirking your ethical duty to the other, whether you want to see that from a Levinasian perspective or a postcolonial one. While it's ok not to have a burning passion for minority studies, I would say that your attitude toward this area of scholarship could be interpreted as socially/ethically, academically and intellectually irresponsible. (I don't mean to single you out in particular. Unfortunately this is a pervasive issue in the humanities, in academia and in society at large.) Moreover, when you've delved deeply enough into Queer and ethnic studies (without necessarily specializing in them), you'll discover that it doesn't make sense to talk about one without the other; they happen to be mutually enriching fields which intersect to yield a hybrid realm of exciting scholarly possibilities! Now there's an example of the beauty of interdisciplinary studies! And you can do that and still consider yourself primarily a canon scholar and a damn versatile and innovative one at that!

Try to keep some of that in mind as you put together your independent study and as you look for the right interdisciplinary program. I think your interests and enthusiasm are certainly admirable and, again, I strongly encourage you and hope that everything works out for you! Again, I'm sorry for the long and somewhat desultory post. I hope my suggestions and feedback are indeed as helpful and constructive as I was hoping they would be. Feel free to PM me if you have any more questions about theory and criticism or about applying to grad school in these fields in general!

[JoeySsance]

...I have settled my mind on a specific subfield/aspect of literature: literary theory. By theory, I mean explicitly theory, not theory situated in any specific historical period. I don't want to exclusively study theory in medieval literature, for example.

I meant to mention this in my previous (admittedly very long) post and it slipped my mind. I did say that there is no such thing as theory in a vacuum. There is no way one could fully divorce or dislodge theory from history. When you're studying a given theoretical framework, you're not only examining an idea or system that's inextricably embedded in a certain moment in history, you're also considering what amounts to being the contingent result of an historical constellation of ideas. Whether you see it through the lens of Foucault's epistemes or Lacan's points de capiton, the point is that no system of thought or subjective engagement with the world is ahistorical or atemporal. Sure, with a slight risk of sounding anachronistic, one could speak of "applying" a feminist or psychoanalytic framework to an earlier time period, say, like the Middle Ages. Certainly these frameworks deepen our understanding and challenge our preconceptions of the social dynamics of these earlier periods. However, you can't say, for instance, "I want to study Marxist theory in and of itself," without also engaging with its historical and social contexts. (I mean, I suppose you could elucidate what Marx's main arguments were but what good does that do in complete and utter isolation from all other considerations?) I would go as far as to say that you will definitely not find a department that offers "pure theory." I would be shocked if such a program did exist and would be intrigued to hear about it if you happen to find one, but I seriously don't think that you will.

One more thing about Berkeley: if you were to consider a department outside of Rhetoric (like English, Comp Lit, Philosophy, etc.), Berkeley happens to have a phenomenal "Designated Emphasis" (i.e. a minor field) in Critical Theory (http://townsendlab.berkeley.edu/critical-theory). Berkeley was another program I got into (for French lit) and their Critical Theory DE was simply one of the most exciting options I was considering! Let me know what you think of it. Admittedly I don't know you, but I have a feeling you might really like it! Just don't expect it to focus exclusively on methodology... Do you see what I mean when I say that it's just not possible to study theory outside of a specific historical period? When I was in college, I too wanted to believe that it could be done. I really and truly did! Now that I know better, as a grad student, I'll be focusing specifically on thought from the 19th century to the present, primarily because the main frameworks I'm passionate about are concentrated in this time period. Then again, it could be argued that Rabelais in the 16th century was already formulating a lot of what eventually came to be the foundational questions of structuralist, Saussurean linguistics and semiotics in the 19th century (which were further elaborated in the first half of the 20th century), e.g. During the Renaissance, Rabelais grappled with questions like: is there a connection between words and the objects to which they refer or is it purely arbitrary? Compare that to Saussure's 19th century writings about signifiers, signifieds and referents... But again, I digress, sorry! Do you see what I mean, though, about theory and history?

[ZeeMore21]

Great post JoeySsance : ) I appreciate your stance on the canon being someone who specializes in African American Lit. I think people must understand that minority/ethnic/queer lit shouldn't be seen as tangential or marginal.

[Two Espressos]

I meant to mention this in my previous (admittedly very long) post and it slipped my mind. I did say that there is no such thing as theory in a vacuum. There is no way one could fully divorce or dislodge theory from history. When you're studying a given theoretical framework, you're not only examining an idea or system that's inextricably embedded in a certain moment in history, you're also considering what amounts to being the contingent result of an historical constellation of ideas. Whether you see it through the lens of Foucault's epistemes or Lacan's points de capiton, the point is that no system of thought or subjective engagement with the world is ahistorical or atemporal. Sure, with a slight risk of sounding anachronistic, one could speak of "applying" a feminist or psychoanalytic framework to an earlier time period, say, like the Middle Ages. Certainly these frameworks deepen our understanding and challenge our preconceptions of the social dynamics of these earlier periods. However, you can't say, for instance, "I want to study Marxist theory in and of itself," without also engaging with its historical and social contexts. (I mean, I suppose you could elucidate what Marx's main arguments were but what good does that do in complete and utter isolation from all other considerations?) I would go as far as to say that you will definitely not find a department that offers "pure theory." I would be shocked if such a program did exist and would be intrigued to hear about it if you happen to find one, but I seriously don't think that you will.

One more thing about Berkeley: if you were to consider a department outside of Rhetoric (like English, Comp Lit, Philosophy, etc.), Berkeley happens to have a phenomenal "Designated Emphasis" (i.e. a minor field) in Critical Theory (http://townsendlab.b...critical-theory). Berkeley was another program I got into (for French lit) and their Critical Theory DE was simply one of the most exciting options I was considering! Let me know what you think of it. Admittedly I don't know you, but I have a feeling you might really like it! Just don't expect it to focus exclusively on methodology... Do you see what I mean when I say that it's just not possible to study theory outside of a specific historical period? When I was in college, I too wanted to believe that it could be done. I really and truly did! Now that I know better, as a grad student, I'll be focusing specifically on thought from the 19th century to the present, primarily because the main frameworks I'm passionate about are concentrated in this time period. Then again, it could be argued that Rabelais in the 16th century was already formulating a lot of what eventually came to be the foundational questions of structuralist, Saussurean linguistics and semiotics in the 19th century (which were further elaborated in the first half of the 20th century), e.g. During the Renaissance, Rabelais grappled with questions like: is there a connection between words and the objects to which they refer or is it purely arbitrary? Compare that to Saussure's 19th century writings about signifiers, signifieds and referents... But again, I digress, sorry! Do you see what I mean, though, about theory and history?

I'm linking to this post rather than your first one, which though very informative, was rather long.

Anyways, I just want to explicate a couple of things that I said earlier in this forum.

Firstly, I certainly do not think that the pertinency of certain subfields is contingent upon one's racial/cultural/sexual identity (ie, WASPs should not discredit African-American literature as being tangential or otherwise insignificant to them). I apologize if I gave that impression!

Also, I'm not averse to considering historical contexts to an issue/theme: I just don't want to focus upon a historical period specificially. At this point, I'm most interested in aesthetics (the history of, issues in canonization/canonicity, definition of beauty, etc) and what I'd most easily sum up as the philosophy of language (a subfield within philosophy which considers the usage, meaning, etc of language; think of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations). Maybe I'm simply ill-informed, but seeing as aesthetics is a relatively narrow topic, wouldn't one study all (or least a greater portion of) relevant texts dealing with aesthetics? Obviously, one's research/dissertation couldn't encompass everything that's ever been written about aesthetics, but wouldn't it be somehow insufficient to focus upon a small historical range of literature written about aesthetics? (once again, seeing as how, at least in my relatively uninformed opinion, aesthetics is a fairly narrow subfield). I really cannot see myself specializing in, say, aesthetic literature written from 1850-1900.

Then again, maybe I simply do not have a firm enough handle on aesthetics itself.

The notion of me specializing in, say, strictly Victorian-era literature written about aesthetics disgusts me (a strong word, but honest). I don't want to go to graduate school and force myself into a field that I do not want to be forced in--with the job market as abysmal as it is, why would I? I'm open to specializing in a sub-subfield (as in, a specific sub-issue within aesthetics): would it be possible to do that instead of focusing on a historical period?

Thanks for your lengthy responses. I appreciate your feedback!

[ZeeMore21]

In my opinion, I don't see any problem with you deciding to concentrate on aesthetics. However, I think what is being argued by other posters is that you are limiting yourself to a certain extent by discarding sub-fields such as cultural studies. I really don't think that you can fully study aesthetics without studying the historical, cultural, sociological, and economic forces that shape it. This is where cultural studies comes in handy. You don't necessarily have to specialize in minority/ethnic/post-colonial queer studies, but these kinds of sub-fields help to interrogate certain beliefs about aesthetics founded on a Eurocentric, heteronormative foundation. I really don't see how you could be a competitive, marketable scholar in aesthetics without entertaining the sub-fields mentioned.

I'm linking to this post rather than your first one, which though very informative, was rather long.

Anyways, I just want to explicate a couple of things that I said earlier in this forum.

Firstly, I certainly do not think that the pertinency of certain subfields is contingent upon one's racial/cultural/sexual identity (ie, WASPs should not discredit African-American literature as being tangential or otherwise insignificant to them). I apologize if I gave that impression!

Also, I'm not averse to considering historical contexts to an issue/theme: I just don't want to focus upon a historical period specificially. At this point, I'm most interested in aesthetics (the history of, issues in canonization/canonicity, definition of beauty, etc) and what I'd most easily sum up as the philosophy of language (a subfield within philosophy which considers the usage, meaning, etc of language; think of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations). Maybe I'm simply ill-informed, but seeing as aesthetics is a relatively narrow topic, wouldn't one study all (or least a greater portion of) relevant texts dealing with aesthetics? Obviously, one's research/dissertation couldn't encompass everything that's ever been written about aesthetics, but wouldn't it be somehow insufficient to focus upon a small historical range of literature written about aesthetics? (once again, seeing as how, at least in my relatively uninformed opinion, aesthetics is a fairly narrow subfield). I really cannot see myself specializing in, say, aesthetic literature written from 1850-1900.

Then again, maybe I simply do not have a firm enough handle on aesthetics itself.

The notion of me specializing in, say, strictly Victorian-era literature written about aesthetics disgusts me (a strong word, but honest). I don't want to go to graduate school and force myself into a field that I do not want to be forced in--with the job market as abysmal as it is, why would I? I'm open to specializing in a sub-subfield (as in, a specific sub-issue within aesthetics): would it be possible to do that instead of focusing on a historical period?

Thanks for your lengthy responses. I appreciate your feedback!

Edited June 13, 2011 by ZeeMore21