Academic Trends

[Sparrowing]

How do people feel about academic trends in the humanities? Do you avoid fields or approaches that have recently received a lot of attention? Do you avoid approaches that have become passé? Or do you just do what interests you, regardless? The stakes are obviously higher for dissertations than for one-off articles.

I certainly appreciate highly responsive, socially relevant theory and criticism, and I'm using the word 'trend' descriptively, not dismissively.

[ComeBackZinc]

This is just one man's opinion, but I figure chasing trends is a recipe for a headache. What's trendy now won't be by the time you finish your dissertation. And what's trendy then won't be by the time you're up for tenure.

Good scholarship is good scholarship. Keep your focus on that.

[Sparrowing]

This is just one man's opinion, but I figure chasing trends is a recipe for a headache. What's trendy now won't be by the time you finish your dissertation. And what's trendy then won't be by the time you're up for tenure.

Good scholarship is good scholarship. Keep your focus on that.

I tend to agree. I also should have mentioned that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between a trend and a new critical turn.

[Swagato]

At the same time, it is (IMO) essential to demonstrate (as an applicant) that you are keenly aware of contemporary developments, that you have the potential to articulate a research vision for your scholarly future. After all the reason a top department will want to train you is because you will then go forth, publish, bring in grants, publish, and generally promote your field's scholarship as a primary goal.

So I can't honestly envision an applicant to English programs in Fall 2012 talking in fiery tones of the glories of political modernism/structuralism/semiotic approaches. Knowing where the 'heat' is can only aid in formulating a sharply focused SOP.

[antecedent]

I find I'm very bad at identifying what's a trend and what's the evolution of the field. I also tend to like very untrendy things (authorial intent, George Orwell, prescriptive grammar), which puts me at a bit of a disadvantage for grad apps sometimes. I think I tried to make my application more appealing this time around by tailoring it to current trends in sociolinguistics, and that blew up in my face. Next time around, I'm definitely sticking to my backwards, untrendy guns.

[dazedandbemused]

I find I'm very bad at identifying what's a trend and what's the evolution of the field. I also tend to like very untrendy things (authorial intent, George Orwell, prescriptive grammar), which puts me at a bit of a disadvantage for grad apps sometimes. I think I tried to make my application more appealing this time around by tailoring it to current trends in sociolinguistics, and that blew up in my face. Next time around, I'm definitely sticking to my backwards, untrendy guns.

I feel you on this. Sometimes I come on here and read about people doing things I've bever even been exposed to, like disability studies, and I lose hope. I'm into queer theory, and where I come from, that's some avant garde shit. Which is why I'm going to spend the next two years of my masters reading EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, the retail price of everything is extremely high, so I'm not sure how I'm going to make this work. Hopefully I make it out of the other end

[LivePoetry123]

What DO people feel are the current critical trends right now in literature?

If I had to pick one thing I'd say "cultural studies." But this actually seems more like a major critical turn than a trend (as some departments are even calling themselves "literary and cultural studies" now). This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately... I don't really like this trend/turn and that worries me--makes me think I don't really have a place in an English PhD after all.

I'm curious to see what others think about the current critical trends.

[Swagato]

My experience is in cinema studies. I went into UChicago's MAPH aiming to develop my profile for PhD work, and I frankly had a very basic foundation prior to that. At Chicago I came to know a great deal, and my interests have expanded well beyond traditional "film studies" as it is thought of in the popular consciousness. Cinema (and media studies) experienced perhaps the most hybridised institutionalisation of all humanities disciplines, since we have worked liberally across ethnographic, statistical, anthropological, political, cultural, psychological, linguistic, historical, and philosophical divisions. My sense is that the field has undergone a major shift toward historical research. "Media Archaeology" is in fact the name of a book I'm reading right now (by Erkki Huhtamo and Jussi Parikka). Another recent 'turn' has been toward film and media philosophy. This is not just taking pre-existing philosophical standards and slapping film or media-works that 'reflect' or refract those ideas onto them, but rather a "from-the-inside" look at how contemporary visual culture asserts itself philosophically. At the latest Society for Cinema and Media Studies conference in Boston, affect was the word of the day. One of the field's most respected scholars remarked on how cognitivism positioned itself a few years ago as a 'new' way to do cinema and media studies, and affect theory poses the logical extension of that.

I am working on developing a sound basis in a historical and theoretical approach toward film and visual culture studies. My interest is less in the traditional model of film studies and more toward a theoretical engagement with contemporary visual culture--particularly in non-theatrical film and "new media" art--informed by/in dialogue with the history of visuality.

[Rupert Pupkin]

What DO people feel are the current critical trends right now in literature?

If I had to pick one thing I'd say "cultural studies." But this actually seems more like a major critical turn than a trend (as some departments are even calling themselves "literary and cultural studies" now). This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately... I don't really like this trend/turn and that worries me--makes me think I don't really have a place in an English PhD after all.

I'm curious to see what others think about the current critical trends.

I sense a developing trend (or at least a more accepting stance) back toward formalism. As a formalist myself, I feel as though I won't necessarily be a pariah within my department the way I might have been 10 years ago. My department has actually hosted a conference on "New Formalism" in the past couple years, which has me pretty excited. Based on my interactions on this board and elsewhere, I sense that there are many scholars of our generation who are disenchanted by the domination of cultural studies and seek a return to aesthetics.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Rupert Pupkin

[Sparrowing]

I actually did have affect theory in mind when I posed the OQ, and in a way a shift in vantage toward the affective might also legitimate formalism (if it needs to be legitimized, which sometimes it does -- hence amalgamations like Historical-Formalism etc. and conferences on New Formalism). Interesting that it could be a generational thing, in which case it's likely to be more of a turn than a trend. This reminds me of a moment where Sedgwick associates hermeneutics of suspicion with baby boomers. I guess for me the problem is a practical one, since I'm only beginning my PhD and don't yet have a firm footing within a field. Like if affect is 'the word of the day,' do you want it in your dissertation title? I think there are some exciting things happening in many disciplines right now, and with that might come a particular anxiety -- or not. (That word 'anxiety' is sooooo loaded....)

Edited April 20, 2012 by Sparrowing

[Two Espressos]

What DO people feel are the current critical trends right now in literature?

If I had to pick one thing I'd say "cultural studies." But this actually seems more like a major critical turn than a trend (as some departments are even calling themselves "literary and cultural studies" now). This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately... I don't really like this trend/turn and that worries me--makes me think I don't really have a place in an English PhD after all.

I'm curious to see what others think about the current critical trends.

I'd totally out of the current critical conversation loop, so to speak, but in my relatively uniformed opinion, I'd say affect theory, queer theory, disability studies, and the like are still pretty popular right now. Lauren Berlant's a big name in the former field; she just wrote a new book, Cruel Optimism, that sits patiently on my shelf, waiting to be read.

So I guess you could say that those fields are offshoots of cultural studies. While I find cultural studies interesting and intellectually worthwhile fields of study, I don't want to specialize in those things at all--which I'll get to in a sec.

I sense a developing trend (or at least a more accepting stance) back toward formalism. As a formalist myself, I feel as though I won't necessarily be a pariah within my department the way I might have been 10 years ago. My department has actually hosted a conference on "New Formalism" in the past couple years, which has me pretty excited. Based on my interactions on this board and elsewhere, I sense that there are many scholars of our generation who are disenchanted by the domination of cultural studies and seek a return to aesthetics.

I've been catching glimpses of such a phenomena here and there and have been thinking similarly about these things. I would by no means call the stuff I'd like to do formalism, but it's certainly not cultural studies either. If there really is such a new formalist movement, I'd wager that it'll be a movement that differs drastically from original formalistic approaches, one that appropriates some of the more salient critical material from poststructuralist/postmodernist methodologies. The latter movement was highly influential, and they had a lot of great ideas. But let's face it: there's a lot of bullshit in there, too. So hopefully any new movement can build upon the valuable contributions of those approaches without bringing up the old excesses. I suppose that's what's happened with some of the theoretical movements I mentioned above (but as I'm outside of these subfields, I cannot say for certain: perhaps others can chime in?).

At a conference, a student asked me a question about whether I agreed with his professor's opinion that 9/11 crucially changed the theoretical landscape as we know it. I said that I wasn't the best person to ask about such things, but that I could definitely see how such could be the case.

Anyways, I don't know whether I'm ahead of the times (highly doubtful) or simply misinformed/misguided (highly likely), but I'm having a hell of a lot of trouble finding departments that seem to fit the kind of theoretical work I want to do. UCLA has their Experimental Critical Theory Certificate thing, but other than that, I'm quite clueless. I want to study meta-theory, exploring the commonalities and presuppositions that inform the prospect of theory itself, tying this into concerns with disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity in contemporary discourse. In this sense "meta-theory" isn't some wholly different level apart from theory, but more like an extension of theorizing, theorizing about theorizing and methodology in literary study. I also want to study 20th century British literature. Maybe these are disparate, irreconcilable interests. I don't know. Blah.

[Sparrowing]

Lauren Berlant's a big name in the former field; she just wrote a new book, Cruel Optimism, that sits patiently on my shelf, waiting to be read.

I actually enjoyed Cruel Optimism quite a bit. I wouldn't hesitate if you've got the time, even if it's tangential to your primary interests.

I also want to study 20th century British literature. Maybe these are disparate, irreconcilable interests. I don't know. Blah.

I tend to ignore anything that begins with the words 'I've heard,' but nevertheless: I've heard that it's a wise idea to ground yourself in a historical period (even if contemporary) if your main interests are theoretical. More appeal for hiring committees, I guess, since you can teach all the appropriate 100-level courses.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Anyways, I don't know whether I'm ahead of the times (highly doubtful) or simply misinformed/misguided (highly likely), but I'm having a hell of a lot of trouble finding departments that seem to fit the kind of theoretical work I want to do. UCLA has their Experimental Critical Theory Certificate thing, but other than that, I'm quite clueless. I want to study meta-theory, exploring the commonalities and presuppositions that inform the prospect of theory itself, tying this into concerns with disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity in contemporary discourse. In this sense "meta-theory" isn't some wholly different level apart from theory, but more like an extension of theorizing, theorizing about theorizing and methodology in literary study. I also want to study 20th century British literature. Maybe these are disparate, irreconcilable interests. I don't know. Blah.

TE, I have observed your posts and can relate to your agonizing over specific interests. It definitely seems like you are asking the "right" questions and making the "right" kinds of inquiries. You are already articulating your interests much more clearly than you were several months ago, and you've got months to go until applications are due; I certainly was an unrefined applicant at this point last year. Your passion shines through in all of your posts, and I think based on the progression you've shown on the board, you've got a great shot at success next year. I know a lot of the anguish you feel about your interests is personal in nature, but I think that a lot of the pressure we feel to neatly define attractive interests comes from just how damn competitive this process is. It sure made me crazy as I attempted to stand out from the crowd.

[lyonessrampant]

I'd totally out of the current critical conversation loop, so to speak, but in my relatively uniformed opinion, I'd say affect theory, queer theory, disability studies, and the like are still pretty popular right now. Lauren Berlant's a big name in the former field; she just wrote a new book, Cruel Optimism, that sits patiently on my shelf, waiting to be read.

So I guess you could say that those fields are offshoots of cultural studies. While I find cultural studies interesting and intellectually worthwhile fields of study, I don't want to specialize in those things at all--which I'll get to in a sec.

I've been catching glimpses of such a phenomena here and there and have been thinking similarly about these things. I would by no means call the stuff I'd like to do formalism, but it's certainly not cultural studies either. If there really is such a new formalist movement, I'd wager that it'll be a movement that differs drastically from original formalistic approaches, one that appropriates some of the more salient critical material from poststructuralist/postmodernist methodologies. The latter movement was highly influential, and they had a lot of great ideas. But let's face it: there's a lot of bullshit in there, too. So hopefully any new movement can build upon the valuable contributions of those approaches without bringing up the old excesses. I suppose that's what's happened with some of the theoretical movements I mentioned above (but as I'm outside of these subfields, I cannot say for certain: perhaps others can chime in?).

At a conference, a student asked me a question about whether I agreed with his professor's opinion that 9/11 crucially changed the theoretical landscape as we know it. I said that I wasn't the best person to ask about such things, but that I could definitely see how such could be the case.

Anyways, I don't know whether I'm ahead of the times (highly doubtful) or simply misinformed/misguided (highly likely), but I'm having a hell of a lot of trouble finding departments that seem to fit the kind of theoretical work I want to do. UCLA has their Experimental Critical Theory Certificate thing, but other than that, I'm quite clueless. I want to study meta-theory, exploring the commonalities and presuppositions that inform the prospect of theory itself, tying this into concerns with disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity in contemporary discourse. In this sense "meta-theory" isn't some wholly different level apart from theory, but more like an extension of theorizing, theorizing about theorizing and methodology in literary study. I also want to study 20th century British literature. Maybe these are disparate, irreconcilable interests. I don't know. Blah.

For some of the disciplinarity stuff, check out Carnegie Mellon's David Shumway.

[Two Espressos]

I actually enjoyed Cruel Optimism quite a bit. I wouldn't hesitate if you've got the time, even if it's tangential to your primary interests.

Yeah, I've heard great things about the book. And Berlant's just so goddamn cool. I have to read it for that reason alone.

I tend to ignore anything that begins with the words 'I've heard,' but nevertheless: I've heard that it's a wise idea to ground yourself in a historical period (even if contemporary) if your main interests are theoretical. More appeal for hiring committees, I guess, since you can teach all the appropriate 100-level courses.

Exactly! I've heard the same things, both from several users on this site as well as from some professors that I trust very much. So I'm definitely sticking with both a historical period and a theoretical focus.

TE, I have observed your posts and can relate to your agonizing over specific interests. It definitely seems like you are asking the "right" questions and making the "right" kinds of inquiries. You are already articulating your interests much more clearly than you were several months ago, and you've got months to go until applications are due; I certainly was an unrefined applicant at this point last year. Your passion shines through in all of your posts, and I think based on the progression you've shown on the board, you've got a great shot at success next year. I know a lot of the anguish you feel about your interests is personal in nature, but I think that a lot of the pressure we feel to neatly define attractive interests comes from just how damn competitive this process is. It sure made me crazy as I attempted to stand out from the crowd.

Rupert Pupkin, thank you for your kind words! It's nice to know that I'm getting closer to articulating my interests more clearly. I feel like I've said on these fora that I want to study just about every subfield under the sun (there's ample evidence in a lot of my older posts that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about as well, not that I know what the hell I'm talking about now, haha).

It's a major encouragement that you feel like I'm asking the right questions/inquiries. I've had kind of a rough week with coursework and such, and these encouraging words really help. So again, thanks a bunch!

It's also nice to have the support of you, TripWillis, and others in regards to the upcoming application season. I hope not to disappoint you all come next fall! I'm nervous and excited in equal measures, but aren't we all?

For some of the disciplinarity stuff, check out Carnegie Mellon's David Shumway.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll have to check him out.

EDIT: I've actually just put a loan request in for his edited volume, Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity. That is like, exactly what I was looking for, lol. So many thanks!

Edited April 21, 2012 by Two Espressos