"Cultural Studies" or "Critical Theory" too far removed from English Grad programs?

[Deadinthewater]

Is it dumb to develop a writing sample and SoP that indicate a more particular interest in theory, cultural studies, aesthetics, etc. in general (and uses these to comment on authors, movements, individual works) as opposed to focusing on movement, period, or postcolonial/gender studies (and supplementing these studies with necessary theory)? I am worried that giving primacy to theory over literature will exclude me from a lot of programs.

To be more clear, is it impractical to say (for a very random example), "I'm interested in cultural studies, and specifically how postmodern, post-industrial means of production have fundamentally altered the possibilities of aesthetic experience?" This, in opposition, to something like "I'm interested in postmodernism, and particularly these authors and how they affect aesthetics....blah blah blah."

Does anyone have any input?

[asleepawake]

Well, I think it depends on the program. I am absolutely in the same boat, and I'm going with it, but I'm not applying to the Formalist University of Formaltown. Do the programs to which you are applying have a cultural studies or critical theory concentration? What kind of work are the professors there doing?

[Phil Sparrow]

It does depend on the program; some will be much more welcoming to this manner of inquiry than others, but that is true of any given area of focus or methodology. You should be cautious of the way you phrase your interests, however, because saying "I want to study Theory!" can be as much of a red flag as saying "I love literature!" In fact, it can be more dangerous, because currently, there really is no job market for general theory experts, and programs won't want to admit students who have no chance of getting a job. This is not to say, however, that the approach you're taking is necessarily inappropriate. You may have a well-defined set of research questions that will distinguish you from the run-of-the-mill "I want to study Theory!" folks. (From your brief description, actually, it sounds like you're well on your way to distinguishing yourself---and it also sounds as if your period is fairly squarely 20th century, so you do have a more specific focus than Theory-with-a-capital-T or whatever.) Just make sure you define a broad but coherent set of research questions (as it has been said on these boards before, you do not need to propose a specific dissertation topic, nor should you) that show you understand how to enter the discipline's current scholarly conversation, and that you deserve a place in it. Those who suggest "I just want to study Theory!" make it clear that they do not know what that conversation looks like.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Phil Sparrow

[Dark Matter]

What Phil said.

[Deadinthewater]

Wow, thank you. I think I will just emphasize that I'm interested in [x] movement, and that I wish to supplement this interest with theory (I want to study theory primarily, but I also want to get into a good program without lying—what's the point in that?). I'm applying to Florida + Syracuse + NYU + Buffalo + Irvine + Columbia + Penn State + Penn + U Chicago, which is a list that, for the most part, steers clear of Formalist University of Formaltown. I hope.

Thanks for the response. Made me feel much better.

[Two Espressos]

Is it dumb to develop a writing sample and SoP that indicate a more particular interest in theory, cultural studies, aesthetics, etc. in general (and uses these to comment on authors, movements, individual works) as opposed to focusing on movement, period, or postcolonial/gender studies (and supplementing these studies with necessary theory)? I am worried that giving primacy to theory over literature will exclude me from a lot of programs.

To be more clear, is it impractical to say (for a very random example), "I'm interested in cultural studies, and specifically how postmodern, post-industrial means of production have fundamentally altered the possibilities of aesthetic experience?" This, in opposition, to something like "I'm interested in postmodernism, and particularly these authors and how they affect aesthetics....blah blah blah."

Does anyone have any input?

The other people in this forum already supplied really great information, but I'm going to chime in and say that I'm largely in the same boat. I'm not really interested in cultural studies, but I'm primarily a theory and philosophy kind of guy. As I wrote in another thread, I mostly want to do philosophy in an English department: by this, I mean that I want mainly to study a subset of theoretical/philosophical issues in context of a period of literature. I think that's okay...hopefully?

Edited November 6, 2012 by Two Espressos

[Stately Plump]

I think you should be fine. My program, anyway, has some room for this type of work, I think. And I have definitely been doing some philosophy in my English department (though don't tell the philosophy department that, because they would disagree).

I agree with Phil, however, that you don't want to peg yourself as a theory person. I think I would stick to your term "cultural studies," or variations of it, because it sounds less like Theory à la Derrida et al. Secondary interests in theory are perfectly acceptable, but as a primary interest it would sound dated and naive, particularly for professors who lived through the theory boom of the 70s and 80s.

Have you read any Walter Benjamin? His essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanic Reproducibility" is very much about how the means of production have altered the possibilities of aesthetic experience. He also has essays on storytelling and the storyteller which might be helpful. Though he was a few decades before poststructuralism and postmodernism (I think he was writing in the 30s?), his fears/anxieties/concerns are almost more postmodern than modern, or postmodernist than modernist.

Another essay of interest might be Philip Auslander's "Postmodernism and Performance." It isn't so much about means of production, but it is definitely about the impact of postmodernism on the aesthetic experience.

[thestage]

There's much to relate Benjamin to poststructuralism. Don't tell that to English departments though, they sure love fads and poststructuralism came and went, now we have to talk about gay black people or we're off the team /suicide

[TripWillis]

There's much to relate Benjamin to poststructuralism. Don't tell that to English departments though, they sure love fads and poststructuralism came and went, now we have to talk about gay black people or we're off the team /suicide

As someone who studies B.Q.S. (see my avatar) at one of the top programs for B.Q.S. in the country, I can assure you that you're overstating things.

Edited November 12, 2012 by TripWillis

[Two Espressos]

There's much to relate Benjamin to poststructuralism. Don't tell that to English departments though, they sure love fads and poststructuralism came and went, now we have to talk about gay black people or we're off the team /suicide

I find your tone overly dismissive, even somewhat offensive. But there is some truth to what you say.

[thestage]

these boards have never taken very well to hyperbole

(see my avatar)

if everyone were as cool as sam delany I think we'd be alright

[thestage]

I find your tone overly dismissive, even somewhat offensive. But there is some truth to what you say.

also I could be witty and call this as good a description of literature as any

[rems]

Not trying to be the totally ignorant one, but what's "B.Q.S."?

[TripWillis]

Not trying to be the totally ignorant one, but what's "B.Q.S."?

I love how this post bolsters my point a little, but forgive me for being oblique. Black Queer Studies. IT'S THE NEW HIPPEST THING.

[TripWillis]

these boards have never taken very well to hyperbole

if everyone were as cool as sam delany I think we'd be alright

Yeah, I try to avoid hyperbole if I can help it. Except I use it like a million times a day. (har har... no? okay)

Sam Delany is some good gay black people. He is also currently dominating all academic conversations. Beware the BQS hegemony!!

[rems]

I love how this post bolsters my point a little, but forgive me for being oblique. Black Queer Studies. IT'S THE NEW HIPPEST THING.

OH I feel like I could have guessed that.

Sam Delany is some good gay black people.

This literally made me laugh out loud. Like, literally.

[bfat]

Things that are new and hip... they tend to get flooded pretty quickly. It seems to me that departments, when hiring, are going to need people who know boring old "Theory" (its history and contemporary applications). Of course, that could be me just projecting my hopes/desires. I just feel like a quasi-traditional route, with a flair of the new and hip, is the safest route. There's still plenty of poststructuralism floating around out there.

[Two Espressos]

also I could be witty and call this as good a description of literature as any

Do you care to elaborate? I think I'm missing something here.

Not trying to be the totally ignorant one, but what's "B.Q.S."?

I knew what B.Q.S. stood for, but I also know nothing about it. So you're not the only ignorant one, no worries!

Things that are new and hip... they tend to get flooded pretty quickly. It seems to me that departments, when hiring, are going to need people who know boring old "Theory" (its history and contemporary applications). Of course, that could be me just projecting my hopes/desires. I just feel like a quasi-traditional route, with a flair of the new and hip, is the safest route. There's still plenty of poststructuralism floating around out there.

Today's hip is tomorrow's passé. The trick is trying to find those intellectual questions and topics that won't go out of style, at least relatively speaking. Or being prescient enough to somehow predict the next academic fad.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Two Espressos

[rems]

Theory and study in literature doesn't end -- it progresses forward. Poststructuralism has simply turned itself into many different fields. Are you going to be able to write a book on poststructuralism and get it published at this point? Probably not, but you do have to understand what it is and where it comes from. Same thing the more social fields. Does "B.Q.S." have its place in the canon and is not just a "fab"? Absolutely, but it will lend itself to the next field of study so students in the next 10 years will see the progression of said theory instead of just seeing the theory as stand alone.

[thestage]

Do you care to elaborate? I think I'm missing something here.

well it wouldn't be very witty anymore if I explained it. just give me this one, I need to keep up appearances

[Two Espressos]

Theory and study in literature doesn't end -- it progresses forward.

Are you saying that every theoretical or critical movement helps progress us forward? I'm not sure that that is self-evident. Plus, what are we using as the criterion for progress here? What do we even mean by progress?

Does "B.Q.S." have its place in the canon and is not just a "fab"? Absolutely, but it will lend itself to the next field of study so students in the next 10 years will see the progression of said theory instead of just seeing the theory as stand alone.

Again, I don't know if I agree with this. What are we using as criteria for a critico-theoretical apparatus here?

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, I know.

[rems]

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, I know.

That's totally legit -- that's the point of intellectual discussion.

Are you saying that every theoretical or critical movement helps progress us forward? I'm not sure that that is self-evident. Plus, what are we using as the criterion for progress here? What do we even mean by progress?

I see what you're saying here, and I agree that it's not self evident. I didn't mean to imply that all theory in literature progresses the field forward. More along the lines of what I meant was that I believe theory doesn't stand alone -- it typically came from somewhere and it's moving something. Does this apply to every single theoretical field in literary studies? Of course not. But take post-structuralism for instance: It's not a breakthrough field anymore, but it's certainly not irrelevant. To be a literary student, particularly one who studies theory, you have to be aware of the schools of thought that came before. For example, if you want to study Derrida you might want to know something about phenomenology and so on.

I believe it's incorrect to state that a field is "dead" or a "fad." Some are, of course, but most still have their place in the field. You never know what literary theory will look like in 50 years.

Again, I don't know if I agree with this. What are we using as criteria for a critico-theoretical apparatus here?

All I meant by this statement is that a study of the combination of these two marginalized groups seems like a progression to me. I know little to nothing about the actual field so I cannot attest to its merit as an intellectually engaging endeavor of literary theory, but I would hope for the sake of humanity that we study BQS the same way that 70 years ago we have hoped that women's literature was considered part of the canon eventually. As I stated before, I have nothing to back this up besides I think black queer studies is another step forward in humanity if not only the humanities. Sort of like how Laura Mulvey's work on the male gaze is no longer considered relevant, but if you want to study film theory let along literary theory you probably want to know her work. Perhaps B.Q.S. will be in the same way in 30 years.

I don't mean to sound like a super PC dick or whatever or make you sound like an asshole by screaming " Are you saying you hate marginalized groups, huh?!" in order to evade my own inabilities to answer the questions. Rather, I don't have any "criteria for a critico-theoretical apparatus," rather I was just commenting on how I don't think that field is a "fad" and it's dismissive to suggest as much.

But, let me ask you this: How would you define these fields? What is making you disagree with my statements?

[TripWillis]

I think BQS is an intervention in broader fields and a way of creating a usable past/canon that has been suppressed and hampered by years of racism and homophobia in academia. It also speaks back to and alters critical discourses, such as queer theory, african-american studies, etc. It's not really a theoretical apparatus unto itself. At any rate, it seems like contemporary scholarship is trying to get away from these easily acquirable theoretical apparatuses. I tend to think of theory's progress not as dialectical or synthetic or as confinable reading methodologies; you gotta make your own reading and each reading is an intervention. Further, the residue of "old" theory often explodes through new stuff.

Dead. Fad. Speculation. Who knows? I can't tell. We'll see in a buncha years.

[Two Espressos]

I want to preface this post by apologizing for completely derailing this thread. I do it all the time. I guess I already have the whole go-on-crazy-tangents professor thing down.

I don't mean to sound like a super PC dick or whatever or make you sound like an asshole by screaming " Are you saying you hate marginalized groups, huh?!" in order to evade my own inabilities to answer the questions.

I don't think you sound like that at all, no worries.

But, let me ask you this: How would you define these fields? What is making you disagree with my statements?

Well I'm in no position to talk about B.Q.S. specifically as I have no knowledge of the field. But I think the question here is one of epistemological justification. What justifies a theoretical/methodological approach as valid? I may just be ignorant, but it seems to me like literary studies as a whole sorely lacks in this area.

At any rate, it seems like contemporary scholarship is trying to get away from these easily acquirable theoretical apparatuses. I tend to think of theory's progress not as dialectical or synthetic or as confinable reading methodologies; you gotta make your own reading and each reading is an intervention. Further, the residue of "old" theory often explodes through new stuff.

Could you expound upon the "you gotta make your own reading" quote? What exactly do you mean by this? I haven't read enough contemporary scholarship to comment on it, but in my relatively uninformed state I'd place myself into the skeptical of "easily acquirable theoretical apparatuses" camp. I can see the value of that for student writing for the sake of expanding students' minds or something of the sort. But professional scholarship? Not so much. I'm quite skeptical of the whole buffet of theory thing. It's almost farcical to me in a way.

In summation, I think my concern here is of epistemic or methodological justification, as noted above, as well as the objectivity/subjectivity of literary knowledge. What is "progress" for literary studies? Other disciplines seem to have a better grasp of this.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Two Espressos

[GuateAmfeminist]

In summation, I think my concern here is of epistemic or methodological justification, as noted above, as well as the objectivity/subjectivity of literary knowledge. What is "progress" for literary studies? Other disciplines seem to have a better grasp of this.

I wonder though - it seems more like they question the concept of progress less. Science and technology in particular seem to have this deterministic view that "advancements" are inevitable and something we must live with. I don't think that just because we think long and hard about what "progress" means that other disciplines have a better grasp. They may not be reflecting on it as much as our discpline does (which may be to our detriment or theirs). Just my initial thought.