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

[rems]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying that the two fields have to be divided. Rather, that the two fields can be and those studies NOT focusing on sociological issues are still as valid as those that do. I even had a fellow grad student once say after a theory class that they thought semiotic theory was stupid, and when I asked why they responded, exactly: "Well I study queer theory which is, like, helping people who are discriminated against. But if you're, like, a semiotic expert how are you helping the world? What's the point?" I think the question we're evading here when it comes to philosophical and theoretical questions in narrative theory is: What's the point of it? It's easy to see the "point" of studies that focus on marginalized groups OR examine the dominate groups.

Here's another example of the two issues we're facing: My Whitman prof told me in the 70's, when he was a grad student, his prof wouldn't say anything at all about sexuality in Whitman's poetry. We, graduate students, were all like, "Then how the hell do you study Whitman if you don't want to talk about sexuality?" And he replied, "You studied the poetic structures and shit." (He swears a lot.) So, is a service to the world at large to do a queer reading of Whitman? Absolutely. But is it also a service to the world to study the poetic structures? Absolutely. Can we combine the two and do a super study that would blow everyone's fucking minds? Totally. There is no "correct" school of thought -- all I'm trying to say that studies not focusing on sociological issues also have their place. I'm also pointing out that we are the cusp of civil rights in our society, so sociological studies are very important right now because that's what's important in our society right now. Call it a "trend," call it a "fad," call it "the word of god," whatever you want to call it, it's BIG right now. And it should be because we're only in the beginning of civil rights and equality for people who are white, rich dudes. BUT, when women, gays, and poor people are a part of the "canon" and no one remembers Harold Bloom, where is theory going then?

[Two Espressos]

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.

Here, I think, is the fundamental disagreement between us. I don't think that academic work can or should be "read and written like [...] literary texts." To the contrary, I see my "work"--scare quotes added to emphasize the anachronistic nature of speaking of such as an undergraduate-- as part of a continuum with the sciences. At present, I'm really interested in seeing what the importation of more mathematical/scientific paradigms into literary work could do. If I'm fortunate enough to pursue a Ph.D. in English, I want to take math and science classes in addition to literature and philosophy ones and start thinking about how literary studies could be more "scientific."

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.

It isn't a straw man. I'm simply responding to the concerns raised on a previous page on this thread by rems about "how far" sociological theories could go. I'm not saying that marginality is the end-all-be-all of sociological theory in literary studies.

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.

I'm not ready to throw my arms up in the air and proclaim that questions of aesthetic value in literature have no answers. I guess that makes me somewhat of a traditionalist in this regard. Thinking about "good literature" might be a fucking can of worms, but by all means, let's open it. (As a discipline, I mean. We don't need to--and probably shouldn't-- go into those things here. It isn't the best place for them.)

I think the question we're evading here when it comes to philosophical and theoretical questions in narrative theory is: What's the point of it? It's easy to see the "point" of studies that focus on marginalized groups OR examine the dominate groups.

There is no "correct" school of thought -- all I'm trying to say that studies not focusing on sociological issues also have their place. I'm also pointing out that we are the cusp of civil rights in our society, so sociological studies are very important right now because that's what's important in our society right now. Call it a "trend," call it a "fad," call it "the word of god," whatever you want to call it, it's BIG right now. And it should be because we're only in the beginning of civil rights and equality for people who are white, rich dudes. BUT, when women, gays, and poor people are a part of the "canon" and no one remembers Harold Bloom, where is theory going then?

This perfectly encapsulates why conservatives hate academia: they see it as conflating activism, ideology, and knowledge. What happened to the relatively disinterested pursuit of knowledge? Shouldn't the point be that, instead of advancing political causes?

You say also that there is no "correct" school of thought. Really? What if I wanted to start a school of thought antithetical to the aims of queer theory, critical race studies, etc. and try to suppress these marginalized groups once more. Would that be correct?

If what you intended to say is that "there is no [one] 'correct' school of thought," then yes, I agree with you. But there seems to be a weird kind of attitude in literary studies wherein many people try to have it both ways: to an extent, it appears to be the case that anything goes, but most people would vehemently oppose the hypothetical anti-gay, anti-minority perspective outlined above. Either there are criteria for judging the validity of a theoretical or methodological paradigm, or there aren't. This directly connects with my concerns earlier in this thread.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Two Espressos

[TripWillis]

Here, I think, is the fundamental disagreement between us. I don't think that academic work can or should be "read and written like [...] literary texts." To the contrary, I see my "work"--scare quotes added to emphasize the anachronistic nature of speaking of such as an undergraduate-- as part of a continuum with the sciences. At present, I'm really interested in seeing what the importation of more mathematical/scientific paradigms into literary work could do. If I'm fortunate enough to pursue a Ph.D. in English, I want to take math and science classes in addition to literature and philosophy ones and start thinking about how literary studies could be more "scientific."

It isn't a straw man. I'm simply responding to the concerns raised on a previous page on this thread by rems about "how far" sociological theories could go. I'm not saying that marginality is the end-all-be-all of sociological theory in literary studies.

All my favorite cultural criticism, no matter what the school of thought, has stylistic and aesthetic choices that make them literary, and that's the sort of stuff I like. The stuff you're talking about sounds like semiotics, formalism, digital humanities, and structuralism, all of which are totally legit (some of which are supposedly passé, not that I would make any argument about that). I would argue, also, that those texts can be literary depending on how you write them. I personally have a resistance to the quantification of the humanities.

Understood on your sociological questions point.

[rems]

I'm not ready to throw my arms up in the air and proclaim that questions of aesthetic value in literature have no answers. I guess that makes me somewhat of a traditionalist in this regard. Thinking about "good literature" might be a fucking can of worms, but by all means, let's open it. (As a discipline, I mean. We don't need to--and probably shouldn't-- go into those things here. It isn't the best place for them.)

I agree that it should be asked, and that it's way too detailed a discussion to have over a forum. The only issue I had with mentioning it here is that a discussion of what is "good" literature has no place in this debate.

This perfectly encapsulates why conservatives hate academia: they see it as conflating activism, ideology, and knowledge. What happened to the relatively disinterested pursuit of knowledge? Shouldn't the point be that, instead of advancing political causes?

If what you intended to say is that "there is no [one] 'correct' school of thought," then yes, I agree with you. But there seems to be a weird kind of attitude in literary studies wherein many people try to have it both ways: to an extent, it appears to be the case that anything goes, but most people would vehemently oppose the hypothetical anti-gay, anti-minority perspective outlined above. Either there are criteria for judging the validity of a theoretical or methodological paradigm, or there aren't. This directly connects with my concerns earlier in this thread.

I'm pretty sure we're essentially saying the same thing.

You say also that there is no "correct" school of thought. Really? What if I wanted to start a school of thought antithetical to the aims of queer theory, critical race studies, etc. and try to suppress these marginalized groups once more. Would that be correct?

This is obnoxious, and you're being antagonistic toward someone who is actually agreeing with you instead of moving the conversation forward. Not trying to pick a fight or anything, but it's really annoying when people throw out the "racist/antigay/antiwoman/ HUH????" card in an argument. I'm pretty sure I made a point NOT to do this to you earlier in this exact same conversation. So don't do it to me.

Edited November 19, 2012 by rems