(Metaphorically) Sitting Down with Theorists

[rococo_realism]

Hello, all. I need your advice about getting through some dense theoretical works.

 

Some context: I'm embarking on a fun, but rigorous, independent research project over the summer. My objectives are threefold: 1) It'll help sharpen my analytical skills for the GRE later this summer, 2) I'll be studying something I've always wanted to study, and 3) It'll acclimate me to the rigors of graduate-level research by getting an early running start on my topic of interest.

 

FYI, I'm applying to Art History programs, and I know that I could have posted this there, but my undergraduate degree is in English, and I know that those of us in English read an ample amount of critical theory. (And I trust a lot of the advice I see dished out in this forum. ) I have to start reading a bunch of critical work before I get to the fun part, which involves looking through catalogues and prints!

 

So...how do you all go about extracting the big ideas from theorists? How do you cull various key words and such from the theorists you use? I find that I wander to Netflix when things get too...exciting?

 

Your help is much appreciated!

[ToldAgain]

I find it helps to have a study/discussion partner. That is how I have done all of my serious theory readings that weren't led by a professor. Two or more people read the same dense text then spend three hours arguing about what it means. I find this works better than anything else, at least for me.

 

But to get to the point where I know enough to even start arguing, I usually read it at least three times:

 

The first pass, I read as if it were a normal book. I don't take notes, but I try to pay attention to main points (conclusions, introductions, repeated phrases).

 

The second time, I bust out the highlighter. I highlight all the important sentences and points/write notes in the margin. Whatever I need to do.

 

On the third pass I read for total understanding. If I still don't get it, then trench warfare ensues.

[Appppplication]

I start with background information on the author and his/her approach. Before I get started I need a general idea of not only the author's approach but what the book is about, what the author's stance is on certain pertinent issues of interest, and generally what overall he/she is trying to say/do. That usually encompasses google searches, reading over some available secondary sources, discussions with people familiar with the work, academia.edu papers published on the book, etc. After getting a general handle on what the book is tackling, why, what broader critiques or new positions are put forward, and from what theoretical/philsophical approaches, I then begin reading.

 

Before completing my M.A. program, I'd read and pencil mark interesting passages, underline important parts, and fold page corners of important sections. As I've progressed through my M.A. I've found that I need to start reading and marking up the book with pencil (Never pen or highlighter), and typing up those notes along with the ideas they provoke either chapter by chapter or as I read (at the computer). With such complex books I find it impossible to remember all the ideas and important thoughts and critical insights even a week after reading. I have to type up reading notes. If I don't type up notes I'm either casually reading, or I'm expecting to go to a class on that book in the very near future where I will write copious notes from the class lecture. And I save all my class notebooks and typed up files for potential teaching notes, dissertation notes, or review or whatever.

[1Q84]

In addition to the very helpful info above, I'll add that I really like to have a good critical theory/philosophy lexicon/encyclopedia open in front of me. Sometimes when I'm in the weeds with a theory text (such as when the theorist keeps using epiphenomenal over and over again and I can't quite seem to remember what the hell that refers to...) it can help to glance over a rudimentary definition in order to get my bearings in a critical piece of terminology. Usually I'll find that the text unlocks magically itself before my eyes!

Edited May 9, 2015 by 1Q84

[ProfLorax]

I'll confess: Wikipedia or Cliffnotes.

I find it's helpful to read a bit about a Big Important text--its main ideas and contribution to the field as well as the conversations surrounding the text--before I jump in. That helps me critically engage with the Big Important Theory. I don't take the summary I read as Truth. In fact, thinking how I would write a summary--what I would emphasize, what I would demphasize, what I would critique-- and how my summary would differ from the one I read when I started is a fun (?) way to get through the text.

[empress-marmot]

I thought you had the right idea when you wrote "sitting down with the theorists." For me, it's important to view these Big Important Theories (thanks to ProfLorax for terming them so) as...just theories. Afterwards, I go back and read the notes or the intros, and then realize that I just made fun of a Big Important Theorist. After reading the page, I try to pick a quote which sums up the most important idea expressed on that page. 

 

I suppose I try to read theory as a casual conversation between the Big Important Theorist and myself. I also write jokes (occasionally cartoons) in my margins, or link quotes in the text to quotes from other works, or comment that someone just made a good point. When said theory gets too...exciting, I cross out unimportant sentences. Or I'll start translating the language into the vernacular, which is always entertaining. 

 

Maybe I'm destroying all that is noble and good about theory, but a slightly-irreverent perspective might keep you from turning to Netflix. Good luck!

[Wonton Soup]

After an undergraduate degree of secondary texts and introductory courses, and then a Masters degree of depth, but scattered depth, I embarked on a similar journey. I drafted up a list of big names and their primary texts and went to work on them in a roughly chronological order. It has been very rewarding. A few things:

 

1) Primary texts are the most important. Secondary academic texts are fine and can help you get a bearing when you feel lost, but ultimately your goal should be to be able to read primary texts and discern the crucial ideas yourself. So read Capital, not an academic article talking about Capital. 

2) Like ProfLorax said, quick, broad summaries from random places like wikipedia and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy can help you get your initial bearings. I also found blogs really helpful at times. Ultimately, you'll get to a point where you see the severe limitations of these kinds of websites, but they are useful. 

3) Be super self-reflective of your learning process. Ask yourself at the end of each chapter what you "got" from it. If the answer is nothing, maybe you weren't paying attention, or the point escaped you, or (frankly) there was nothing of worth in that particular chapter, which does sometimes happen. 
3a) I find drawing "schemas" or maps of a particular author and all the terms and strands of his/her thinking useful.

3b) As a teacher, I find that when I'm forced to teach a concept, I learn it in a deeper way that "sticks." So I have pushed myself to find opportunities to "teach" an author or idea, either in one of my local community book readings or by writing a blog post or something. 

3c) I have adopted my own in-text note taking style that helps me both learn material as I read and find the important passages and important quotations when I come back to the text later. You should experiment too.

[rococo_realism]

Thanks, all! You've all offered advice that I can use. One general takeaway is that I should read about the theory/theorists in addition to reading the primary texts themselves. I like that, because the theory anthology we used in my undergraduate program had introductions that gave a cursory overview of theories before the actual writings themselves. (e.g. an intro to deconstructionism before Lyotard's "The Postmodern Condition.") Basically, I need to find more thorough secondary sources along with the primary sources. After all, I'll be reading actual books this time around.

 

I have some colleagues who are applying to various programs, as well. Maybe I can get them to read some theories, too, by cajoling them with good chocolate or some other decadent treat. Reading the theories several times with different objectives is also a good idea!

 

And, empress-marmot, I try to incorporate irreverence into much of my academic life. For example, I find this hilarious:

 

Thanks, everyone! If you have other suggestions or insights, don't hesitate to include them. And FYI, some of the names include Marx, Barthes, Jameson, and Foucault.

[echo449]

I would recommend looking into recent stuff as well--a large part of the field is moving away from a Jamesonian explication of texts and towards different sorts of conceptions of reading and discovering the political in texts. This article is a useful overview and has a bibliography at the end to point you in the right direction. http://arcade.stanford.edu/content/post-critical-reading-and-new-hegelianism

This is to say: In another thread, I said that I was going to spend my summer reading Freud and psychoanalytic work. For me, this is something I'm really eager to learn about, but at the same time, it's not exactly what the field is building off of (though you could make an arg that it is central to affect theory). So if you're gunna spend the summer catching up on theory, reading some of the current work could be more useful than reading a ton of Barthes (and I love Barthes). 

Some big current names:
Lauren Berlant
Fred Moten
Brian Massumi (i'm spelling this wrong, sorry)
Rita Felski
Jacques Ranciere (I'm biased on this one)
Alexander Galloway (and, through him, Laruelle)

Edit to add: take any advice I give with a grain of salt--any syllabus I write will be terrible. 
 

Edited May 10, 2015 by echo449

[Bleep_Bloop]

I would recommend looking into recent stuff as well--a large part of the field is moving away from a Jamesonian explication of texts and towards different sorts of conceptions of reading and discovering the political in texts. This article is a useful overview and has a bibliography at the end to point you in the right direction. http://arcade.stanford.edu/content/post-critical-reading-and-new-hegelianism

This is to say: In another thread, I said that I was going to spend my summer reading Freud and psychoanalytic work. For me, this is something I'm really eager to learn about, but at the same time, it's not exactly what the field is building off of (though you could make an arg that it is central to affect theory). So if you're gunna spend the summer catching up on theory, reading some of the current work could be more useful than reading a ton of Barthes (and I love Barthes). 

Some big current names:

Lauren Berlant

Fred Moten

Brian Massumi (i'm spelling this wrong, sorry)

Rita Felski

Jacques Ranciere (I'm biased on this one)

Alexander Galloway (and, through him, Laruelle)

Edit to add: take any advice I give with a grain of salt--any syllabus I write will be terrible. 

 

 

A very useful summary, thanks for the link. Overall I agree, but I'm a very strong advocate of reading the classic theory before (or at least alongside) the newer stuff. Admittedly, this might not be the most useful strategy for everyone; I know a few people who find it very helpful to read retrospectively, starting with more recent theory and working backwards. That said, if you've already read (and understood) Marx, Althusser, Barthes, Jameson, Derrida, Deleuze/Guattari, etc. before, I agree that you shouldn't focus on them obsessively at the expense of familiarizing yourself with more recent debates. Summer is when I go back and read the classics that I'm not familiar with but that pop up in the new theory that I read in seminars, so depending on your familiarity with them I think that spending a summer getting caught up on the older theorists can be quite productive.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Bleep_Bloop

[circlewave]

I keep a personal index on the title page or blank pages at the beginning. If I come across a passage I like, find crucial to the entire book, or may want to refer to for any reason in the future, I mark the page number and a brief description (eg. "Thesis Moment," or "Link to Heidegger" or whatever); that way I can refer to my favorite moments quickly or find citations quickly without having to dogear the book or fill it up with post-its or flags

[echo449]

I agree, Bleep_bloop, and I'd also add the caveat that your particular genre and time period will inflect what theory you may or may not feel the need to dive into--if you are a novel person, Barthes' work will be more important than for people more interested in poetics.

[rococo_realism]

I think I'll mention this again for the record: my undergraduate degree is in English, but I'm going to be applying to Art History programs next year. I'm going to be using this summer to compose a journal-length essay, and theory figures greatly into my (pending) argument. I just think that English majors tend to have the best knowledge of a wide array of theory. Everyone has given great (and useful) advice, of course, and I just wanted to note this, though.

 

circlewave. that's a good idea! I think that I'll probably buy a good journal to track my ideas and reactions. And Bleep_Bloop, I feel the same way: laying the foundation with canonical theorists and then moving on to newer ones.

 

echo449, thank you for that link; it's an interesting read! And thanks for that list. I looked up Lauren Berlant's Cruel Optimism, and must read it sometime. Maybe I'll throw it onto my summer reading list. (Which, fyi, is proliferating!) I'm going to be ordering some books soon, so yay for that.

[qwer7890]

I think I'll mention this again for the record: my undergraduate degree is in English, but I'm going to be applying to Art History programs next year. I'm going to be using this summer to compose a journal-length essay, and theory figures greatly into my (pending) argument. [...]

 

echo449, thank you for that link; it's an interesting read! And thanks for that list. I looked up Lauren Berlant's Cruel Optimism, and must read it sometime. Maybe I'll throw it onto my summer reading list. (Which, fyi, is proliferating!) I'm going to be ordering some books soon, so yay for that.

 

in addition to Berlant's Cruel Optimism (read it!), two other very recent books (published in the last three or so years) that I'd recommend (as a theoretical-leaning art historian) are: Our Aesthetic Categories by Sianne Nagi, The Forms of the Affects by Eugenie Brinkema. Also, add to your list Eve Sedgwick's Touching Feeling. 

 

The great thing about contemporary thinkers is that you don't have to just (metaphorically) sit down with them... you can apply where they teach and take classes with them, have them serve on your dissertation committee... actually sit down with them. So it's worthwhile, I think, on a practical level, to spend some time with contemporary theory before you apply to graduate school.

Edited May 12, 2015 by qwer7890

[ToldAgain]

I want to thank echo for the helpful list of modern theorists. I have done a lot of theory readings, but my classes have always stopped around Deleuze/Guattari. I now have a wonder-package of new theorists coming my way!

[rococo_realism]

I want to thank echo for the helpful list of modern theorists. I have done a lot of theory readings, but my classes have always stopped around Deleuze/Guattari. I now have a wonder-package of new theorists coming my way!

And I echo you: thanks again, echo! Galloway is the youngest theorist I've encountered.

 

in addition to Berlant's Cruel Optimism (read it!), two other very recent books (published in the last three or so years) that I'd recommend (as a theoretical-leaning art historian) are: Our Aesthetic Categories by Sianne Nagi, The Forms of the Affects by Eugenie Brinkema. Also, add to your list Eve Sedgwick's Touching Feeling. 

 

The great thing about contemporary thinkers is that you don't have to just (metaphorically) sit down with them... you can apply where they teach and take classes with them, have them serve on your dissertation committee... actually sit down with them. So it's worthwhile, I think, on a practical level, to spend some time with contemporary theory before you apply to graduate school.

THANK YOU for the Nagi recommendation; it's definitely going to come in handy! Those others are on the list, too. I'm so excited to start reading! This is "theory summer" for me.

Edited May 13, 2015 by rococo_realism86

[1Q84]

in addition to Berlant's Cruel Optimism (read it!), two other very recent books (published in the last three or so years) that I'd recommend (as a theoretical-leaning art historian) are: Our Aesthetic Categories by Sianne Nagi, The Forms of the Affects by Eugenie Brinkema. Also, add to your list Eve Sedgwick's Touching Feeling. 

 

The great thing about contemporary thinkers is that you don't have to just (metaphorically) sit down with them... you can apply where they teach and take classes with them, have them serve on your dissertation committee... actually sit down with them. So it's worthwhile, I think, on a practical level, to spend some time with contemporary theory before you apply to graduate school.

 

And I echo you: thanks again, echo! Galloway is the youngest theorist I've encountered.

 

THANK YOU for the Nagi recommendation; it's definitely going to come in handy! Those others are on the list, too. I'm so excited to start reading! This is "theory summer" for me.

 

Yikes! It's Sianne Ngai

[rococo_realism]

Yikes! It's Sianne Ngai

Duly noted!

[qwer7890]

Duly noted!

whoops... the perils of typing fast!

[czenzi]

I would recommend looking into recent stuff as well--a large part of the field is moving away from a Jamesonian explication of texts and towards different sorts of conceptions of reading and discovering the political in texts. This article is a useful overview and has a bibliography at the end to point you in the right direction. http://arcade.stanford.edu/content/post-critical-reading-and-new-hegelianism

This is to say: In another thread, I said that I was going to spend my summer reading Freud and psychoanalytic work. For me, this is something I'm really eager to learn about, but at the same time, it's not exactly what the field is building off of (though you could make an arg that it is central to affect theory). So if you're gunna spend the summer catching up on theory, reading some of the current work could be more useful than reading a ton of Barthes (and I love Barthes). 

Some big current names:

Lauren Berlant

Fred Moten

Brian Massumi (i'm spelling this wrong, sorry)

Rita Felski

Jacques Ranciere (I'm biased on this one)

Alexander Galloway (and, through him, Laruelle)

Edit to add: take any advice I give with a grain of salt--any syllabus I write will be terrible. 

 

This is a really good list. I'm going to take some ideas from it as well. (And, I like Ranciere too.) 

Edited June 22, 2015 by czenzi