Help me pick my independent study reading list!

[Two Espressos]

Hello all,

I'm in the process of designing an independent study next spring entitled "Contemporary Theory and Technology." As the title states, I intend to look at technology and its effects; in particular, I'm interested in the relationships between technology, ethics, power structures, gender, and the posthuman body (it's very general, I know. The professor overseeing this study encouraged it to be, so that I would have a large context, giving me freedom to pick a specialized topic). The reading list is going to be entirely theory-based, barring a work of fiction (or film, etc) to discuss. Texts that I intend to read thus far include Foucault's Discipline and Punish and Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain. I also plan on reading work by Donna Haraway ("Manifesto for Cyborgs" especially) and N. Katherine Hayles.

For this study, I need 3 or 4 book-length theoretical texts as well as a dozen or so theoretical articles, but I don't know what other texts I should pick!

Do any of you have suggestions on other book- or article-length texts to supplement what I have thus far? Also, what works by Haraway and Hayles would you suggest?

Thanks everyone.

An addendum: As the course title is "Contemporary Theory and Technology," recent articles (within the last few years) of theory on technology are most welcome.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Two Espressos

[truckbasket]

You might be better of with a Foucault reader because D&P doesn't cover the spectrum of his output. Biopower, for example, is commonly referenced in contemporary theory, and that's predominantly outlined in The History of Sexuality. Pantheon has a pretty cohesive collection of Foucault's greatest hits, you might want to look there. As far as the others, I only know Hayles' stuff, but I've never been that impressed by it.

It might be smart to supplement contemporary texts with some postmodernist cultural standards such as Baudrillard's "Precession of Simulacra", Jameson's "Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture," Kristeva's "Essay on Abjection," David Harvey's stuff on time-space compression (even some Benjamin, such as "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" etc. Much of what is discussed today is grounded in many of those ideas that were put out in the 80s (and earlier), but it would be difficult to think about technoculture without reaching back into the 19th C and early 20th C and seriously considering the industrial revolution, Fordism, post-Fordism via some Marxist stuff. Jameson is a good guy to talk to about that.

[runonsentence]

Haraway's Companion Species Manifesto is also very good, and helps her to further disrupt binaries in human/machine.

THE text to read by Hayles would be How We Became Posthuman, if it's not on your list already. I've also read excerpts from My Mother Was a Computer. Also, if you get multimodal about this, Hayles has a lot of recorded lectures up online, and she's a lovely speaker. Worth checking out.

I agree with truckbasket about some foundational texts. Lyotard's "Defining the Postmodern" might also be useful in this respect, as would some Marxist readings—some I've read in the context of a women's studies seminar on Feminst Foundations include Fredrich Engels "Origins of the Family" (this connects interestingly to Haraway's cyborg manifesto—ideas of kinship) and Raymond Williams "Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory." Post-marxist, there's the classic "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" by Althusser.

Edited November 4, 2011 by runonsentence

[Two Espressos]

truckbasket and runonsentence:

Thanks for the suggestions! Some of them are familiar to me (either I've read them or am cognizant of their arguments), but many are new!

Runonsentence, I was thinking of using How We Became Posthuman by Hayles: your recommendation has solidified that thought.

As for Foucault, I wasn't sure what text(s) I should use. I wanted to read a primary text as opposed to a secondary guide, but if you think Discipline and Punish wouldn't be useful enough, I'll have to reconsider.

This independent study is only 3 credits, so the reading load is only supposed to be 3-4 theoretical books, 12-15 theoretical articles, and a work of fiction; my analysis of this will culminate in a paper of 20-30 pages. Delimiting the reading list in a coherent way is starting to seem difficult.

[truckbasket]

Foucault might be tough to cover for this project, just because there's so much material. If you just read D&P, you'll be missing a good chunk of his important arguments. I'd consider him to be foundational (in other words, read several of his well-known ideas in excerpts rather than all of D&P). Chances are, most of the contemporary writers dealing with this subject will be working with him directly, so maybe scan your projected texts' bibliography and see what they're referencing the most. His lecture, "Society Must be Defended," for example, gets referenced a hell of a lot.

Were I you, I'd maybe choose two primary texts that are both contemporary and perhaps argue against one another (to situate your own argument); one semi-generic 'history of technoculture' (if such a thing exists); and one text that deals with academic praxis / utility within the humanities. Use your articles as opportunities to read well-known foundational chapters (such as "Precession" from Simulations, or the first chapter of Jameson's Cultural Logic). Perhaps even expand your definition of "articles" to look at something like Alex Juhasz's "Perpitube" (a very hot-off-the-press example of transmedia techno-theory). However you go about it, you really should attempt to get groundings in some of the history (Industrial Revolution), get some of the main concepts (Late-Capitalism / Hyperreality), and then trace how current discussions work around those ideas.

This might be a good place to dig around to see what the current arguments are:

http://con.sagepub.com/

[Two Espressos]

Foucault might be tough to cover for this project, just because there's so much material. If you just read D&P, you'll be missing a good chunk of his important arguments. I'd consider him to be foundational (in other words, read several of his well-known ideas in excerpts rather than all of D&P). Chances are, most of the contemporary writers dealing with this subject will be working with him directly, so maybe scan your projected texts' bibliography and see what they're referencing the most. His lecture, "Society Must be Defended," for example, gets referenced a hell of a lot.

Were I you, I'd maybe choose two primary texts that are both contemporary and perhaps argue against one another (to situate your own argument); one semi-generic 'history of technoculture' (if such a thing exists); and one text that deals with academic praxis / utility within the humanities. Use your articles as opportunities to read well-known foundational chapters (such as "Precession" from Simulations, or the first chapter of Jameson's Cultural Logic). Perhaps even expand your definition of "articles" to look at something like Alex Juhasz's "Perpitube" (a very hot-off-the-press example of transmedia techno-theory). However you go about it, you really should attempt to get groundings in some of the history (Industrial Revolution), get some of the main concepts (Late-Capitalism / Hyperreality), and then trace how current discussions work around those ideas.

This might be a good place to dig around to see what the current arguments are:

http://con.sagepub.com/

Would you recommend reading that Pantheon Foucault Reader in lieu of Discipline and Punish then?

As for a text that deals with utility/praxis within the humanities (I'm assuming "theory" will be a main topic?), do you have any suggestions? I've read some meta-theoretical articles both for and against theoretical inquiry, but if a collection of these texts (or a really seminal text that I am perhaps missing) exists, then I'd love to use it.

As for some work dealing with late 19th and early 20th century issues of industry, capitalism, etc, you mentioned Jameson as a good source. What books/articles would you recommend? I'm familiar with "Postmodernism and Consumer Society," but that's about it.

Thanks for your help thus far by the way. I truly appreciate it! If others have advice to add, please do so.

[truckbasket]

Re: D&P, it really depends on what you want to do with the project and how it threads your ideas together. Perhaps you could discuss with your overseeing (panoptic) professor the possibility of checking out a few main texts from the library, but using the reader as a guide and jumping back to the primary stuff as needed? It sounds to me like you're aiming for a crash course in Foucault, so a wide but superficial exposure might be better suited than just one text. Perhaps pick up D&P and skim the contents to see if he's going to be hitting on the stuff you'd be looking to incorporate? The other way to tackle it would be to power through one of Oxford's "Very Short Introductions" (about 100 pages or so), and then go back to the sources.

I can't think of much practical stuff off the top of my head, but if I do think of something, I'll post it here. Hayles has Electronic Literature, but it might be a bit dated now. Some research into contemporary work would probably be best.

Jameson's Cultural Logic would give you a good build up of the Late-Capitalist simulacra stuff, but again, you might want to relegate him to articles for this particular project as he's dealing with topics that set the scene, but might not be the best for methodology. You might also want to think about getting a few of Deleuze's ideas down: the Rhizome, Body Without Organs etc. Jameson and Foucault aren't too taxing, but chances are you'll be faced with some very heavy duty reading. Zizek might be worth a peek as well.

Sounds like you've got some researching to do! And as far as the text you're using for analysis, that unread copy of Gravity's Rainbow you mentioned is probably the paradigmatic representation of all of these issues. It's dealing with problems of technology and the body in a very literal way (people getting packed into V-2 rockets as human sacrifices / Pavlovian mind control / sentient light bulbs called Byron and whatnot). It's an intimidating text to write about, though.

[Two Espressos]

Re: D&P, it really depends on what you want to do with the project and how it threads your ideas together. Perhaps you could discuss with your overseeing (panoptic) professor the possibility of checking out a few main texts from the library, but using the reader as a guide and jumping back to the primary stuff as needed? It sounds to me like you're aiming for a crash course in Foucault, so a wide but superficial exposure might be better suited than just one text. Perhaps pick up D&P and skim the contents to see if he's going to be hitting on the stuff you'd be looking to incorporate? The other way to tackle it would be to power through one of Oxford's "Very Short Introductions" (about 100 pages or so), and then go back to the sources.

I can't think of much practical stuff off the top of my head, but if I do think of something, I'll post it here. Hayles has Electronic Literature, but it might be a bit dated now. Some research into contemporary work would probably be best.

Jameson's Cultural Logic would give you a good build up of the Late-Capitalist simulacra stuff, but again, you might want to relegate him to articles for this particular project as he's dealing with topics that set the scene, but might not be the best for methodology. You might also want to think about getting a few of Deleuze's ideas down: the Rhizome, Body Without Organs etc. Jameson and Foucault aren't too taxing, but chances are you'll be faced with some very heavy duty reading. Zizek might be worth a peek as well.

Sounds like you've got some researching to do! And as far as the text you're using for analysis, that unread copy of Gravity's Rainbow you mentioned is probably the paradigmatic representation of all of these issues. It's dealing with problems of technology and the body in a very literal way (people getting packed into V-2 rockets as human sacrifices / Pavlovian mind control / sentient light bulbs called Byron and whatnot). It's an intimidating text to write about, though.

I have First as Tragedy, Then as Farce by Zizek (I planned to use it for a seminar paper due later this term). Would that be worth using?

Regarding Foucault, I borrowed the Oxford Very Short Introduction from the library a few days ago and have been skimming through it. I think I'll blaze through it in the coming week so as to get a general scope of things. I did want to read a primary text by Foucault so I could really delve into his ideas; I know only a little about Foucault, so if you think that the Pantheon reader would be a better overview, then I'll go with that.

What do you think about using Scarry's The Body in Pain? No one has commented upon that yet. The professor overseeing this study recommended it as a possible supplement, and I've always wanted to read it.

And I never thought about reading Gravity's Rainbow! I like that idea better than the texts I was considering--Neuromancer by William Gibson or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick.

I'm going to compile a list of all the texts that you and others have recommended and show it my professor next week. Hopefully she can help me narrow things down in a cohesive way.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Two Espressos

[Two Espressos]

Also,

You might also want to think about getting a few of Deleuze's ideas down: the Rhizome, Body Without Organs etc.

What text or texts would you recommend for Deleuze?

[truckbasket]

I have First as Tragedy, Then as Farce by Zizek (I planned to use it for a seminar paper due later this term). Would that be worth using?

[i haven't read it. He has like a million books.]

Regarding Foucault, I borrowed the Oxford Very Short Introduction from the library a few days ago and have been skimming through it. I think I'll blaze through it in the coming week so as to get a general scope of things. I did want to read a primary text by Foucault so I could really delve into his ideas; I know only a little about Foucault, so if you think that the Pantheon reader would be a better overview, then I'll go with that.

[i'd check with your prof to see what s/he think.]

What do you think about using Scarry's The Body in Pain? No one has commented upon that yet. The professor overseeing this study recommended it as a possible supplement, and I've always wanted to read it.

[i haven't read it, but if your prof suggested it, it's probably a smart move.]

And I never thought about reading Gravity's Rainbow! I like that idea better than the texts I was considering--Neuromancer by William Gibson or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick.

[Neuromancer and Androids would serve your purposes well. GR is a lot of work, but then again, Neuromancer isn't exactly a walk in the park either.]

I'm going to compile a list of all the texts that you and others have recommended and show it my professor next week. Hopefully she can help me narrow things down in a cohesive way.

[sounds like a plan!]

Also,

What text or texts would you recommend for Deleuze?

[The main texts are 1000 Plateaus and Anti-Oedipus. I wouldn't read either, but instead lift a couple of concepts (like the Rhizome, which I think is in Anti-Oedipus. Neither is very accessible, but Zizek did some stuff on them that's at least readable (Organs Without Bodies)]

[Sparky]

What do you think about using Scarry's The Body in Pain? No one has commented upon that yet. The professor overseeing this study recommended it as a possible supplement, and I've always wanted to read it.

Definitely worth it. Very thought-provoking, and I've seen it put to good use in literature, theology, even historical scholarship, so I can see it being helpful in the future. And isn't the point of an independent study to allow you to get course credit for "stuff I've always wanted to read"?

I doubt you need extra recommendations on book-length treatments, but when you go searching out articles/chapters you might want to include one or two disability theory essays on your list. I'm thinking especially of ones that deal with assistive technology and end-of-life issues; depending on how you define 'technology,' you might also consider medicine-as-technology. (But if you were thinking of using Dick or Gibson you are probably operating with a narrower def of 'technology' than that, which is of course A-OK, this study is your gig and you get to make it awesome for you!)

ETA: If you are also looking for novels with which to play around--Robert Sawyer's Mindscan, absolutely. It deals with some of the same issues as Do Androids Dream, but you can see Sawyer engaging with the implications (both of the technological leaps within the story, and the ethical questions for the readers) more directly and less...on acid than Dick did.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Sparky

[Two Espressos]

[The main texts are 1000 Plateaus and Anti-Oedipus. I wouldn't read either, but instead lift a couple of concepts (like the Rhizome, which I think is in Anti-Oedipus. Neither is very accessible, but Zizek did some stuff on them that's at least readable (Organs Without Bodies)]

Thanks for all your help. I've spent some time thinking about Gravity's Rainbow, and I think I'm going to choose one of the other texts instead: as you and others have said, it's a very difficult text, one that would needlessly exacerbate the writing sample's difficulty. I don't want to write a 30 page paper that carries a wildly off-base interpretation!

I WILL read GR sometime soon though, perhaps this summer.

[Two Espressos]

Definitely worth it. Very thought-provoking, and I've seen it put to good use in literature, theology, even historical scholarship, so I can see it being helpful in the future. And isn't the point of an independent study to allow you to get course credit for "stuff I've always wanted to read"?

Excellent, I'll definitely read it then.

I doubt you need extra recommendations on book-length treatments, but when you go searching out articles/chapters you might want to include one or two disability theory essays on your list. I'm thinking especially of ones that deal with assistive technology and end-of-life issues; depending on how you define 'technology,' you might also consider medicine-as-technology. (But if you were thinking of using Dick or Gibson you are probably operating with a narrower def of 'technology' than that, which is of course A-OK, this study is your gig and you get to make it awesome for you!)

One or two disability studies articles might be worth adding. Are there any articles that you would specifically recommend?

ETA: If you are also looking for novels with which to play around--Robert Sawyer's Mindscan, absolutely. It deals with some of the same issues as Do Androids Dream, but you can see Sawyer engaging with the implications (both of the technological leaps within the story, and the ethical questions for the readers) more directly and less...on acid than Dick did.

Cool, thanks for the recommendation! I think I'll pick Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Neuromancer, or Mindscan for the fictive text.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Two Espressos

[vordhosbntwin]

Bernard Stiegler on technics is good, but dense. He's a Derridean, and this work is reflective of that.

As for Jameson, I'm actually taking a class with him at Duke right now, and he's had us read his Valences, which is excellent and relevant to what you're up to. The course is called "Aesthetics, Structuralism, and Dialectics," and he also has us reading some Foucault and Deleuze (as two anti-dialectical thinkers). For Foucault, we've read all of The Order of Things, and for Deleuze, we've read bits of his work on film, focusing specifically on his montage article. If you decide to go the Stiegler route, an engagement with the dialectical/anti-dialectical debate could be especially fruitful, and therefore it might be worth considering Foucault's OoT. If you don't have any Hegel, I would maybe read "Sense-Certainty" in the Phenomenology. Jameson himself is about as dialectical as they come, if a bit vulgarly materialist.

[Two Espressos]

Bernard Stiegler on technics is good, but dense. He's a Derridean, and this work is reflective of that.

As for Jameson, I'm actually taking a class with him at Duke right now, and he's had us read his Valences, which is excellent and relevant to what you're up to. The course is called "Aesthetics, Structuralism, and Dialectics," and he also has us reading some Foucault and Deleuze (as two anti-dialectical thinkers). For Foucault, we've read all of The Order of Things, and for Deleuze, we've read bits of his work on film, focusing specifically on his montage article. If you decide to go the Stiegler route, an engagement with the dialectical/anti-dialectical debate could be especially fruitful, and therefore it might be worth considering Foucault's OoT. If you don't have any Hegel, I would maybe read "Sense-Certainty" in the Phenomenology. Jameson himself is about as dialectical as they come, if a bit vulgarly materialist.

Thanks for the info! I'll add those readings to my list and parse it out when I bring it to my professor.

[Grunty DaGnome]

I think Agamben is the new big theorist to build on Foulcault. Homo Sacer is one of his most widely read books, but glance over the Agamben page on Amazon.com and see what interests you.

[Two Espressos]

I think Agamben is the new big theorist to build on Foulcault. Homo Sacer is one of his most widely read books, but glance over the Agamben page on Amazon.com and see what interests you.

Thanks for the recommendation!

[truckbasket]

I think Agamben is the new big theorist to build on Foulcault. Homo Sacer is one of his most widely read books, but glance over the Agamben page on Amazon.com and see what interests you.

Agamben's Homo Sacer works well in tandem with Foucault, for sure. I just read an article by Katia Genel in which she paired them up against one another. That would be another way to see if it's up your alley.

[Grunty DaGnome]

That's great advice truckbasket! A great way to indroduce a new theorist through one you probably already know fairly well.

You might want to include something a little off the wall and more geared toward the visual. Duchamps on Dadaism maybe? It seems to me his work was a real turning point in "art" culture that challenged established power structures and was arguably spurred on significantly by changes in technology and mass production. If you're reading any Benjamin, some Duchamps manifestos might fit in well.

Also, I once took a class on the Avant Garde and recall reading some good essays on the museum as a power institution by critics like Rubin on "primitivism" or McEvilley. It might be too far from your and your professor's idea of "theory" but it might break up the reading a bit. Independent study is time to have fun and explore, right?

[truckbasket]

That's great advice truckbasket! A great way to indroduce a new theorist through one you probably already know fairly well.

You might want to include something a little off the wall and more geared toward the visual. Duchamps on Dadaism maybe? It seems to me his work was a real turning point in "art" culture that challenged established power structures and was arguably spurred on significantly by changes in technology and mass production. If you're reading any Benjamin, some Duchamps manifestos might fit in well.

Also, I once took a class on the Avant Garde and recall reading some good essays on the museum as a power institution by critics like Rubin on "primitivism" or McEvilley. It might be too far from your and your professor's idea of "theory" but it might break up the reading a bit. Independent study is time to have fun and explore, right?

I'm still trying to parse the Agamben / Foucault connection. Agamben is offering refuge from biopower via the internalization of the sovereign, right?

The Dada manifesto is great, and you can essentially argue the institutional framing of the museum just by using Duchamp's Readymades, but I'd also think about the Futurist manifest. On one hand it's hilarious, on the other, it's really useful for postmodern ideas of time/space compression (the kind of stuff David Harvey barks on about). Actually, both seem tangential for the OP's project!

[Grunty DaGnome]

I'm still trying to parse the Agamben / Foucault connection. Agamben is offering refuge from biopower via the internalization of the sovereign, right?

The Dada manifesto is great, and you can essentially argue the institutional framing of the museum just by using Duchamp's Readymades, but I'd also think about the Futurist manifest. On one hand it's hilarious, on the other, it's really useful for postmodern ideas of time/space compression (the kind of stuff David Harvey barks on about). Actually, both seem tangential for the OP's project!

Yeah, both are probably tangential, but both are fun. Readymades is a good essay to chose and it would be a good mid-semester break from theorists who take themselves so seriously But I do think Duchamp has serious applications, even if he demands to be taken unseriously. He goes right along with the theme of "power" and relates back to politics and more serious topics [more serious than toilets] if the OP is interested in non-traditional art at all. Grafitti in general or Bansky, Sheppard Fairey, who was recently arrested in Boston, or those guys who shut down Boston with a terrorist scare because they were doing guerilla marketing for aqua teen hunger squad owe a huge debt to Duchamps for tearing down the border of "art" inside and outside of a museum.

Duchamps is also more upbeat. I mean, you read something like Benjamin's Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, and it sounds like everything good only used to be and life has truly come to an end. That guy could have used a better sense of humor, I think.

[Two Espressos]

truckbasket and GruntyDaGnome:

Ah, Marcel Duchamp! Ala Duchamp's Fountain, right? I think that's a bit too tangential for my project, but "anti-art" is extremely interesting.

I will look further into the Agamben/Foucault thing. I think that paper you mentioned earlier, truckbasket, might be a better idea than reading a full work by Agamben. I have to limit my reading list at some point.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Two Espressos

[ecritdansleau]

Depending on how much experience you have with theory, you might want to have the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism on hand (most libraries probably have the new edition by now). I didn't end up buying it until recently, and I don't know why I didn't buy it sooner. It's useful for offering a wide survey of different thinkers (I actually find it interesting just to look over the table of contents, because it's like a historical outline of literary criticism). It is thus a great springboard for figuring out theorists you want to look into in more depth, as well as a good reference for theorists you come across in other writings and want to look up. The brief overviews and extensive bibliographic summaries for each entry are invaluable.

[Sigaba]

Since this thread is about brainstorming, I'm going to drift out of my lane and throw out a suggestion for a project either now or down the line.

Start with N.A. Lomov, ed., Scientific-Technical Progress and the Revolution in Military Affairs: A Soviet View (1973), bounce over to how that theoretical work has influenced Western military theory since the 1970s (especially in the U.S.), and then transition to the post-Cold War discourse over the "revolution in military affairs," the impact of that sprawling conversation on the planning and conduct of military operations. (Examples include DESERT STORM, GOTHIC SERPENT, NOBLE ANVIL, ENDURING FREEDOM, IRAQI FREEDOM, and UNIFIED PROTECTOR.) Then examine the confluence of those operations and American popular culture (especially gaming) and its concurrent impact on the construction of masculine identity in the digital age. (Call it a hunch. )

[Two Espressos]

Depending on how much experience you have with theory, you might want to have the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism on hand (most libraries probably have the new edition by now). I didn't end up buying it until recently, and I don't know why I didn't buy it sooner. It's useful for offering a wide survey of different thinkers (I actually find it interesting just to look over the table of contents, because it's like a historical outline of literary criticism). It is thus a great springboard for figuring out theorists you want to look into in more depth, as well as a good reference for theorists you come across in other writings and want to look up. The brief overviews and extensive bibliographic summaries for each entry are invaluable.

Yes, the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism is an English major's best friend. I actually have my copy sitting next to me as I type this.

For those reading this post who do not have a copy, buy one immediately. You can thank ecritdansleau and I later.