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

[thestage]

Science and technology in particular seem to have this deterministic view that "advancements" are inevitable and something we must live with.

well, there are rather deterministic technological markers. moore's law isn't uncritical optimism

[thestage]

What justifies a theoretical/methodological approach as valid?

"Funding," he said, and sprinted away.

[practical cat]

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.

Other disciplines haven't read their Benjamin.

[rems]

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 think you raise an interesting question here. And I wouldn't say that other disciplines have a "better grasp" exactly, but they think they have easier parameters in which to measure progress. Like, it's probably "progress" that we're moving towards an affordable vaccine for HIV. But is is "progress" that we've now developed literary theories that explore the cultural implications of disabled Native American veterans? From a purely cultural standpoint, definitely. But from a theoretical standpoint? I'm not so sure. I think we're, honestly, moving away from more "theoretical" fields of theory (think something like semiotics) and into more sociological fields on literature. Click through the faculty list at any top 20 school, and you'll see 15 people +++ who have "queer studies," "postcolonial," or "transnational" as a listed interest. These fields are exploding because literature studies are moving away from isolated close readings and into more cultural/sociological studies.

This is, of course, not the end all end all of literary theory. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're asking how do we determine which of these new" fields of theoretical inquiry are legit, and how do we determine that? We don't have clear cut lines as the sciences -- that's what makes us English. And it's ironic, kinda, because we have all the words! And we can't even seem to figure out how to use them in order to come up with effective definition. Damn ambiguity.

[rems]

"Funding," he said, and sprinted away.

Love it.

[practical cat]

I think we're, honestly, moving away from more "theoretical" fields of theory (think something like semiotics) and into more sociological fields on literature.

Nailed it. I think the lines between the Humanities and the Social Sciences (deliberate capitalization to delineate them as Big Important Categories) are becoming increasingly blurry and, forgive my unapologetic Foucault love for a moment, is a function of poststructuralism. I think also that our discomfort with "progress" as a narrative (yet another function of the aesthetic and early poststructuralist theorists, right?) as opposed to, say, an evolution of inquiry is something really uniquely Theory-with-a-capital-T that we'll perhaps see dissolving as we continuously embrace "progressive" as something of an ideal. It's really tough to be uncomfortable with ideas of "progress" while still being really into the idea that BQS IS progressive, IS more advanced than we were in 19-whatever. Basically, I think the discipline is young enough and consistently redefining enough that I think you're (two espressos) kind of pointing to something that is being newly revisited as we grapple with the legacies of the post-'s.

[thestage]

I think we're, honestly, moving away from more "theoretical" fields of theory (think something like semiotics) and into more sociological fields on literature. Click through the faculty list at any top 20 school, and you'll see 15 people +++ who have "queer studies," "postcolonial," or "transnational" as a listed interest.

This is the sober version of my earlier hyperbole, for the record.

As someone much more interested in the theoretical than the sociological, I have to find ways to justify the former in terms of the latter in order to come across as relevant. The project is hard enough as it is, I'd rather not be forced to justify it within the confines of the discipline. But there we are.

[TripWillis]

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 think you sound like that at all, no worries.

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.

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.

I'm not saying "buffet of theory"; I'm saying that the division between theory as reading methodology and text as object to be read is blurry, and we're all the better for it. Papers, novels, essays, etc. are also literature, and I think it's helpful to keep that in mind when you're writing about any given text -- i.e., if your reading is just a reflection of or pure adaptation of a critical stream, then what's the point in writing it? In other words, theory is more helpful if you think of it as a circuit of ideas rather than a methodology. Granted, each set of ideas is going to affect your tactics, but, like, I'm not a queer theorist any more than Derrida is a deconstructionist. I work in a few modes that intersect and exchange and pose interventions. That's all I mean.

[rems]

This is the sober version of my earlier hyperbole, for the record.

As someone much more interested in the theoretical than the sociological, I have to find ways to justify the former in terms of the latter in order to come across as relevant. The project is hard enough as it is, I'd rather not be forced to justify it within the confines of the discipline. But there we are.

Yes, I think this is a good point. For lack of better term, I will admit that it's probably "easier" to get into programs if you study something more cultural than bare-bones theoretical. However, I think you may start to fall into line with Medievalists: there's usually about 1-3 per department whereas you can have anywhere form 10 + for modern or contemporary lit, esp. regarding intersections of queer or postcolonial studies. Long story short, you have your place, but it's harder to define, and it's harder to prove.

But, I wonder, just how far can we push that side of theory? I think that's an interesting question to pose. We're on the cusp of civil rights and giving marginalized and suppressed voice their place. In fact, many of us are making a name for ourselves with it. However, are we going to eventually reach a point where we have no one else to stick up for? What happens in 20 years when we can't find any more marginalized groups? Where will theory go then? I don't want to sound like a jerk with all this, but I think it's worth considering. I also don't mean to totally derail this thread which really has nothing to do with this, but here we are, again.

[GuateAmfeminist]

It's hard for me to believe that there won't be any more marginalized groups in 20 years and/or will have studied all that is to be offered from theories who work through issues surrounding marginalization and oppression. The fact that we could speak about these theories as "giving margnialized and suppressed voice [sic] their place" or "[having] no one else to stick up for," to me, shows that we are far from a place where we are thinking about entrenched power structures and oppression in a wide-spread and meaningful way. Why would we run out of materials in feminist theory? For goodness sake, we still study Shakespeare and there are several works and authors which scholars of feminism, postcolonial studies, ethnic and 3rd world lit, and queer studies (to barely scratch the service) have rediscovered and fought for who have just as much to offer in terms of scholarship. This makes it sound like "theory" people are just waiting for the canon to come back into vogue as if literary studies has been derailed. I just don't see what "theory" has to be in opposition to, what I consider to be, other theories.

Edit: fixed a few typos and a weird transition

Edited November 15, 2012 by GuateAmfeminist

[rems]

I don't believe that theorists are waiting for the canon to come back in any way, but I do understand the frustration with not wanting to study the sociological aspects of literature but feeling forced to. I think that's how this whole thread started. Are there going to be marginalized groups 20 years from now? Shit, 200 years from now? Absolutely. I by no means am trying to say that I think all discrimination and our patriarchal system are going to be fixed by 2032. What I am saying is that studying sociological aspects of literature are very popular right now -- as they should be -- but that doesn't mean that, oh how I wish I had a better word for it, just "theory" theory doesn't still have it's place.

[GuateAmfeminist]

So what is considered "theory" theory and what isn't? Is feminist theory not "theory" while deconstruction is? I am confused as to how "theory" people are defining the term. I am also baffled by the idea that culture and theory are not inextricably tied. People from cultures (generally European/Western) made many theories and I think it's easy to see where that cultural background seeps into their theories.

[rems]

Yah, that's why I wish I had a better word for it -- I'm sure it exists but I don't know what to phrase it as exactly. In fact, "sociological theory" isn't even a thing, it was just the closest term I could find. What I mean by "theory" theory is for people who conduct close readings and apply semiotic or deconstructionism or linguistic theories or even genetic studies while staying completely away from feminist, queer, postcolonial, racial, socioeconomic, etc. theories. And culture and theory are absolutely tied together! But sometimes they aren't. I even study postcolonialism and gender so I'm way more in the cultural end of this field, I just think it's always worth questioning. I can also understand why it's irritating from a more "theory" theory point of view to be annoyed with the fact that when you aren't studying anything cultural people probably accuse you of not caring about marginalized or oppressed groups.

Like everything in literature and the study of literature, there is no black and white -- just varying shades of grey. One of our jobs as critics is to constantly question our critiques, so playing "devil's advocate" even for something as obvious as why we study marginalized groups is always necessary or else we end up with too firm a paradigm... again.

[thestage]

So what is considered "theory" theory and what isn't? Is feminist theory not "theory" while deconstruction is?

When you talk about, say, power structures and patriarchy, there is rarely an effort to elucidate what, if anything, these have to do with literature. If the "goal" of the methodology, investigation, whatever, is advancement or promotion of one group of people or literatures, than you will have a hard time convincing me that it is theoretical in nature. There certainly is feminist theory and feminist literary approaches that are more theoretical than others--Hélène Cixous comes to mind--but simply taking a piece of literature and demonstrating how it propagates systems of marginalization is not theoretical, it is interpretive. It is functional. That so much of the sociological criticism "arises" from theoretical paradigms that are no longer understood as vital should be considered prima facie evidence of their distance from theoretical concerns. If the understanding of why a certain approach to literary studies is externalized from textual concerns, then it does not strike me as properly literary in nature. "How does a text function as a text" cannot be reduced to sociological concerns, even if the movements of the text after the fact either demonstrates, supports, or in some way produces certain social paradigms. There's a reason "cultural studies" is gaining traction as a catch-all term in opposition to notions of theory or literature. Cultural studies would assume as a condition of its existence a foundational relationship between the beliefs of a society and the cultural output of that society, and from that premise investigate instances of the reciprocity of that relationship; theory, which is really another word for philosophy, would look at the underpinnings of the idea of that relationship, and critique the movement between the two as a movement, in textual terms. Or, yes, it could deny the foundational premise entirely, or discard it at its leisure in favor of something it would take to be more profitable. Of course this does not mean that there is no interplay between theory and what arises from or informs the theory. That would be nonsense. Even current boogeyman Derrida wrote a book on Marx, took the fight against ethnocentric assumptions as a foundational premise of his methodologies, and would be the first to tell you that the mere concept of removing a "theory" from its object or from the society in which it arose is a nonstarter. But it would be safe to say that studying the work of Sam Delany from a queer black studies perspective would be more interested in how the social conditions of "black" and "queer" inform the content of Delany's creative output than in how the text structurally internalizes (or intentionally deprivileges) those concepts, or how matters of perspective are, in general, as a function of phenomenological reality, transformed as a process into a cohesive written (and thus empirical) total.

Something like that.

Edited November 16, 2012 by thestage

[practical cat]

But, I wonder, just how far can we push that side of theory? I think that's an interesting question to pose. We're on the cusp of civil rights and giving marginalized and suppressed voice their place. In fact, many of us are making a name for ourselves with it. However, are we going to eventually reach a point where we have no one else to stick up for? What happens in 20 years when we can't find any more marginalized groups? Where will theory go then? I don't want to sound like a jerk with all this, but I think it's worth considering. I also don't mean to totally derail this thread which really has nothing to do with this, but here we are, again.

I think that feminist theory is totally at its 40 year point for this and it necessarily looks less like "let's recognize Jane Austen as a viable subject of literary study" but, if anything, there's even more stuff to do. Lady writers have a place like never before (I, for one, didn't much study male writers in college) but now we have to actually talk about them. And we have to talk about how we talk about them. And we 100% still completely have to justify that because we'll probably never actually live in a world where feminism is unnecessary. And that's just the lady writers.

[Two Espressos]

Ugh so many people have responded since I last did. I don't feel like writing 2000 words in response to all of this, so I'm just going to say that like thestage I'm far more interested in the theoretical or philosophical questions than the sociological ones. The sociological ones are important, of course, but I'm mostly uninterested in them. I agree that the sociological route will eventually reach a zero point if all it attempts to do is search for increasingly specific marginalized groups. Thankfully, there are plenty of other sociological questions that can be pursued, so the sociological readings face no danger in that respect.

I agree with much of what thestage has said in this thread. S/he is far more eloquent than I am.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Two Espressos

[Two Espressos]

Papers, novels, essays, etc. are also literature, and I think it's helpful to keep that in mind when you're writing about any given text

I'm not sure I agree with this. Where do we draw the "literature" line? I'm aware that these issues have been argued to death, but I've never read a satisfactory answer. All I know is that the "everything-is-a-text" movement--I'm not including you in this of course-- surely dissatisfies me.

[asleepawake]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Where do we draw the "literature" line? I'm aware that these issues have been argued to death, but I've never read a satisfactory answer. All I know is that the "everything-is-a-text" movement--I'm not including you in this of course-- surely dissatisfies me.

THERE IS NO OUTSIDE-THE-TEXT.

Did you ever think you'd read that in all caps?

[thestage]

THERE IS NO OUTSIDE-THE-TEXT.

Did you ever think you'd read that in all caps?

what you are trying--and failing--to quote is Derrida's "there is nothing outside of the text," which does not at all mean what you apparently think it means.

[asleepawake]

what you are trying--and failing--to quote is Derrida's "there is nothing outside of the text," which does not at all mean what you apparently think it means.

Yikes! Feisty! No, you are trying--and failing--to seem superior, but maybe you're forgetting that what you're quoting is Spivak's translation of Derrida anyway, so it is far from the only way to express it. Remember how he was, like, a French guy or something? And no, I'm not misunderstanding Derrida (not this time, anyway...) and thinking that he means "everything that can literally be read is literature" (is this what you think I think it means?). Instead, I do think it has some relevance to the discussion of what we consider "worth thinking about," so I typed it up and caps locked it for the LOLZ. It may have been a LOLZ fail, but at least I'm not the jerk who said "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 can't remember who said that. Was is Spivak?

Edited November 16, 2012 by asleepawake

[thestage]

technically he was algerian

[asleepawake]

Touché

[TripWillis]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Where do we draw the "literature" line? I'm aware that these issues have been argued to death, but I've never read a satisfactory answer. All I know is that the "everything-is-a-text" movement--I'm not including you in this of course-- surely dissatisfies me.

Sure, and I didn't say everything is a text (although many things, from shoeboxes full of photos (Tina Campt's Image Matters) to the city skyline (Michel De Certeau's The Practice of Everyday Life) can be read), just that everything we are working on or studying belongs to a circuit of ideas about literature whose phases and influences and connections are rhizomatic and composed of indeterminacy, thus making that traditional border between literature and non-literature blurry at best. Literary criticism, theory, etc. are also literature (and should be approached as such in their writing) because they are making interventions in literature and they are written through and with the consideration of language. Conversely, novels, poems, and drama can often be read as theory or criticism. I didn't mean to be unclear. I'm not trying to say something about canonicity or worth or value. I'm trying to say something about how we approach work. I don't think there's any reason to consider crit and theory apart from literature. And since novelists and poets and playwrights don't write their work like prescriptive, totalized, applicable methodology, I see no reason to read or write crit and theory that way.

But, alas, this seems to be the real gist of the cultural studies debate -- is "it" literature qua literature? The answer is that there's no easy answer and it isn't up to you or me to draw the line. I hate overdeterministic disciplinary thinking. All I'm saying is that academic work should be read and written like, as it is accompanied by, literary texts.

Edited November 16, 2012 by TripWillis

[TripWillis]

Ugh so many people have responded since I last did. I don't feel like writing 2000 words in response to all of this, so I'm just going to say that like thestage I'm far more interested in the theoretical or philosophical questions than the sociological ones. The sociological ones are important, of course, but I'm mostly uninterested in them. I agree that the sociological route will eventually reach a zero point if all it attempts to do is search for increasingly specific marginalized groups. Thankfully, there are plenty of other sociological questions that can be pursued, so the sociological readings face no danger in that respect.

I agree with much of what thestage has said in this thread. S/he is far more eloquent than I am.

I'm not sure I understand this divide between sociological questions and theoretical ones. Sociology is social theory. History is also a kind of theory (narratology, facticity, materiality, dialectics). Is what you're saying more that you're more interested in metaphysical and aesthetic ideas in literature than you are in sociohistorical ones? That's fair enough. But I also think metaphysical and aesthetic ideas can, and probably should be, dually studied as sociohistorical (see, for instance, Heidegger and Paul de Man) -- not saying you have to, but someone probably should so we don't lose the provenance and context of everything. And is anyone saying that sociological literary questions have to focus on marginality? I feel like you're throwing out a straw man argument. Marginality comes up a lot of in sociological questions because of how important cycles and structures of dominance and power are to sociological theory, but it is just as much a study of the dominant imprint as it is the marginal group.

[rems]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Where do we draw the "literature" line? I'm aware that these issues have been argued to death, but I've never read a satisfactory answer. All I know is that the "everything-is-a-text" movement--I'm not including you in this of course-- surely dissatisfies me.

Change the word "literature" to "narrative" and I agree with TripWillis because anything can be deemed a "narrative" from which we can "read." However, when you start throwing around the word "literature," which has a subjective meaning, you might as well be asking what is "good literature" and what is not which is a fucking can of worms so big it encompasses the entire genre. You're right, there is no satisfying answer to this because there is no answer to the question.

technically he was algerian

fist bump.

maybe you're forgetting that what you're quoting is Spivak's translation of Derrida anyway, so it is far from the only way to express it.

Is it translated from French, despite the fact that Derrida was, in fact, Algerian, and there are multiple ways to translate. asleepawake's translation is not any more incorrect than your English translation because it's a TRANSLATION.