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?!’ ...
4) But that move needs more than flabbergasted suggestion. It needs a justification, preferably one acceptable and valuable to—even if critical of—x and the people who work in and care about x. ...
5) A lot of ppl talk themselves out of having to offer such a justification by convincing themselves that, unlike literature scholars, all or most x’s are instrumentalist, cynical, neoliberal, hyperfocused, and co-opted, so if they don’t care about or value or see the point of...
6) ... ‘literature and x’ it’s on them and they just need to be critiqued (even if they simply ignore the critiques while we get angrier and angrier). The flaw in proceeding that way is obvious even if not psychologically satisfying. /end
Preemptive Addendum: If x really is beyond engaging with constructively bc so co-opted, the necessary justification becomes why you’re using literary study to critique it. Go into politics *or* be honest and deflate the liberatory claims of ‘literature and x.’
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
