1) A crucial insight here I'd like to expound upon. There's a fundamental mismatch between the purposes for which English departments were set up and the charges of knowledge work today. Neither avoidance nor activism can change that. ...
2) The institution of Literature is not the way it was when knowledge was re-organized and departments created to specialize in the study and close reading of Literature. That's not so say literature isn't important today, but that it's not an institution as it once was. ...
3) I know people think the problem is simply a lack of justice or appreciation for our work and we can awareness or activist our way out of the problem, but I think that's wrong. The institution of Literature is not coming back in the form that engendered our departments. ...
4) The most obvious manifestation of this is the pivot from close-reading Literature to close-reading culture (Cultural Studies). Even if this (has been) the solution (I don't think it is), the mismatch remains: depts. still organized by traditional Literature categories. ...
5) ...still studying Literature while holding up great TV, film, pop music, public performance, etc. as justification for relevance of 'the humanities,' and then not organizing research around those things (to be clear I don't think we should either). But that's the mismatch. ...
6) For me, none of this means that English departments are dead nor should be. Far from it, in my view. But it does mean we need to change to meet the demands of the knowledge work that actually has to be done. In many ways we have, for example ...
7) The shift toward work meant to address concrete problems in the world, such as medical ethics and practice, or environmental humanities. I have my issues with *how* we go about doing those things still, but they reflect important shifts in purpose. ...
8) Likewise much of the work I've been doing lately on method has been about creating the conditions for knowledge production in lit. studies that would enable us to work usefully in tandem with researchers in other fields. ...
9) This is the point at which someone inevitably wants to jump in and say some version of 'don't internalize blame, the problem is neoliberalism all the way down.' But even if we accept that premise (fine with me) it doesn't undo the mismatch I describe above. Likewise ...
10) it doesn't undo the basic hypocrisy of claiming we need to fight for this thing and for jobs in this thing while completely refusing to justify the value and purpose of doing the thing in the first place, beyond those offered 50 years ago. ...
11) Which is to say it will take work, organizing, activism, but not without changing what we're organizing around, and changing the attitude that everyone else out there who doesn't value our work is just naive or simpleminded and we're the ones with the true insight, etc. ...
12) In my dept. we've been working hard not only to communicate our value but also the produce a curriculum oriented toward knowledge problems in medical humanities, climate justice, datafication, the 'global' past, etc. These are my glosses; the work is much richer. ...
13) And for what it's worth, our majors and minors have gone *up* in the past few years. I don't claim simple causality here, just that we're working really hard to listen to our students and think strategically about what kinds of things are asked of us today. ...
14) A final caveat: I think a lot of people think equating scholarship with social justice is the way forward. I don't think that saves English departments. I think we should do social justice bc it's just; be inclusive bc it's the right thing to do and makes us stronger...
15) But the ability to lay some knowledge groundwork for social justice activism doesn't distinguish English depts. from any other; nor is it even clear activists need or care about our readings. It won't be enough. ...
16) But I'd like to end on a more positive note: Plenty of exciting teaching and research going on in English departments. Plenty of ability to meet the new challenges. But not without recognizing them first and seeing them clearly. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) ‘Literature and x’ works best when the thing being called ‘literature’ actually is or is doing the x, e.g. literature and philosophy where poem or novel is actually doing philosophy and that’s one of the purposes of poem or novel. ...
2) Or literature and science in a time and place (say ~ 1600-1800 in Britain) when ‘literature’ expressly included scientific writing. ...
3) ‘Literature and x’ where the relationship btw the two is ‘x is mentioned in literature’ or ‘here’s a ‘literary’ perspective on x’ is one area where people like to slip from the mere facts of ‘literature and x’ to ‘x is so important, so how could ‘literature and x not be?!’ ...
I don't mean this as a cheeky response (this is a great piece well worth your time), but suppose we see all of this--QAnon, culture wars, &c.--*as* *actual* *policy*. I think that's the way to understand it. It's not policy that helps people or helps the country, but it's policy!
E.g., the Trump admin. used executive orders to execute a lot of policy stuff on the culture wars front. And I think we should understand obstructionism as a policy choice, following a policy agenda that passed libertarianism long ago and verges into nihilism.
I guess I should say: I don't mean this as merely a semantic distinction. I think it's actually instructive to see GOP actions as steps toward fulfilling earnest desires and ideological outcomes (like any other party). The methods are cynical but the desires sincere.
1) A speculative thought on class in the US, prompted by @jbouie's excellent newsletter, in which he quotes (to take issue with) this miserable assessment of the capitol insurrectionists by Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic ...
2) @jbouie concludes, correctly and contra Flanagan, with this. Which honestly made me think of class in 18th c. Britain, in the sense that ...
3) ... we're not quite talking about 'lower,' 'middle,' and 'upper' classes, but a more fine-grained 'class' system of socioeconomic ranks, as in the 18th c. To explain ...
Whereas I have tons of pedagogical chill (being patient, supportive, encouraging, looking for the good in student work) the material I teach has no chill. Sometimes I wonder what students think of that.
Sometimes I feel bad about the prospect of students coming to my course because of what they've heard about me and then I'm like 'Cowley was the last of the metaphysical poets according to Johnson...let's talk about Aristotelian referentiality and anti-Ciceronianism...'
'You've signed up for a literature course...Let's talk about the emergence of 'Literature' at the end of the 18th century and why we're not reading any of that...'
1) I've said for years now that 'STEM' vs. 'humanities' is a silly and destructive dichotomy, as is the blame game that goes along with it. I've also said non-biz 'STEM' fields will face pressure similar to 'hum' fields. Viz., cuts to the math dept. at Murdoch U:
2) By 'non-biz' I mean fields without a direct biz application & that don't pull in profit for the institution. 'STEM' marketing relies on the 'T' and the 'E,' & 'STEM' has been valuable branding as biz incentives have increasingly driven higher ed governance & policy choices. ..
3) The 'S' and the 'M' won't be able to ride this marketing wave forever. People will realize an English degree and a biology degree have near identical employment prospects and start asking ?s of biology they now do of English. ...
1) Quick thread about tenure (I'm up for tenure right now). I value the prospect of tenure. Highly. I don't think people like Dean White at UC Boulder understand that if you take that away then people like me work elsewhere, including in another industry altogether. ...
2) I quit a consulting job to get a PhD in English. In 2008. I wasn't naive abt what it meant for my financial & employment prospects to make that decision. If you're thinking, whoa, that was stupid, I don't agree, but that should tell you how much I value the prospect of tenure.
3) I wouldn't have quit my job to do a PhD if there were no prospect of tenure. Notwithstanding the impression you have by now from this thread of my appetite for risk, I'm an extremely risk averse person. The best I can explain this is with a poker analogy (sorry). ...