21st Century
Theories of Literature:
A Critical Reflection on
an Interdisciplinary Event
Philip
Gaydon (University of Warwick) and Andrea Selleri (University of
Warwick)
Abstract
The authors reflect upon
the successes and
difficulties of developing and running 21st-Century Theories
of
Literature: Essence, Fiction, and Value, an interdisciplinary
conference held
at the University of Warwick on 27-29 March 2014.
The aim of the conference
was to encourage a more
sustained focus on the overlap between two disciplines which, prima
facie, have
a lot in common: philosophical aesthetics (and in particular its
literary
branch, the philosophy of literature) and literary studies (of
which
literary theory may be considered a subdivision). Because both deal
with
literature and have an investment in the idea of theorisation, one
might have
thought that there was no need to encourage active dialogue and it
would arise
naturally from the needs of each field. However, in the current
institutional
state of affairs where philosophy departments and literature
departments often
have little overlap, ‘aesthetics’ and ‘literary
theory’ are two very distinct
entities, and interaction is underdeveloped even when room for it does
exist.
As such, we judged that there was a need for such a prompting. This
piece
presents the rationale for our conference, and describes its
preparation,
development and outcomes.[1]
Keywords:
philosophy and literature; interdisciplinary; multidisciplinary;
literary
theory; aesthetics; conference
Introduction
The institutional split
between theories of
literature undertaken in literature departments and theories of
literature
undertaken in philosophy departments (henceforward, for ease of
exposition,
‘literary theory’ and ‘aesthetics’) has not
always been in place. There was a
time, not so long ago, when aestheticians such as I.A. Richards and
Monroe
Beardsley had a major influence on literary studies, and literary
critics like
Cleanth Brooks and Northrop Frye dealt in aesthetics using (broadly)
the same
language and the same theoretical frames of reference as their
contemporaries
in philosophy departments. Today, however, ‘literary’ and
‘philosophical’
theories of literature tend to go their separate ways: literary theory
and
aesthetics are practiced in different departments, and their respective
work is
published in different journals, and disseminated in different
conferences.
Although individual scholars (including prominent figures such as
Charles
Altieri and Toril Moi) have crossed the boundary in their work, and
some
universities (including Warwick) and journals (such as Philosophy
and
Literature) have promoted collaboration between aestheticians and
literary
scholars, the general tendency in the two fields is to resist a
synthesised
approach.
Our conference aimed at
establishing a more
systematic dialogue between the two fields, and at opening up the
possibility
of a more widespread cross-fertilisation. We prompted participants to
gauge the
extent of their similarities and differences, locate any areas in which
they
could aid each other in approaching shared issues, and, more generally,
turn
that faraway hostile ‘them’ into an addressable
‘you’. We attempted to
facilitate this as much as possible in three main ways. Firstly, we
selected
topics broad enough to stimulate members from both fields: the
‘essence’ of
literature (How do we define literature? What are the implications of
trans-historical definitions of literary terms?), its
‘value’ (Ethical?
Emotional? Cognitive?), and the nature of ‘fiction’ (What
is the difference
between ‘real’ and ‘fictional’ character? What
establishes a text as ‘fiction’
as opposed to ‘non-fiction’?). Secondly, we adopted an
innovative format for
the keynote sessions: the ‘double key-note’. In each case,
we contacted two
established academics, one from each field, and prompted them to
present talks
on a shared topic and to respond to the other’s talk, before
taking questions
from the floor. Thirdly, we had all the panels include a balance of
philosophers and literary scholars. Twenty-six paper proposals were
selected
from a pool of about a hundred, coming from academics both senior and
junior
from all over the world.
At the end of March, we
welcomed eighty delegates
from a variety of countries (including a number of Warwick-based
academics who
helped chair the sessions). The main part of the proceedings took place
over
two days, preceded by an evening welcome event, which included a
reading from a
poetry instillation by the Exegesis collective entitled
‘The
Wittgenstein Vector’ – a nice way of bridging the two
traditions. The
proceedings were closed by a roundtable in which the keynote speakers
and the
other participants had the chance to talk more generally about
interdisciplinary
interaction.
Overall, the interaction at
the conference was
fruitful in many ways. However, it can be argued that we did not
achieve the
collaborative synthesis of knowledge that many recognise as necessary
for true
interdisciplinarity. Informal feedback forms and subsequent
conversations
suggest that many delegates felt their horizons had been broadened
through
interaction with speakers and topics from the ‘other’
field. For instance,
Catherine Belsey commented in e-mail correspondence that the
proceedings had
created a productive Lyotardian differend (a conflict rendered
unresolvable by
the lack of a rule of judgment applicable to all parties involved) for
many to
sharpen their positions on. Greg Currie, also in e-mail correspondence,
stated
that he thought claims of his insensitivity to historical circumstance
were
inaccurate but it was now clear the topic needed addressing more
thoroughly.
Sergia Adamo related to us in conversation that she found the
interaction
useful in helping her formulate a clearer answer as to why the analytic
aestheticians were wrong. She also commented: ‘[Literary
theorists] rarely had
an identity until this conference in my experience. We argue with each
other at
literary conferences, but here we were unified’. Indeed, feedback
forms
highlighted that various participants shared the sentiment that the
conference
interaction had served as a whetstone for previously held positions and
a
chance to re-avow disciplinary allegiance. However, as positive as
these
results may be, they suggest that proceedings fell short of active
interdisciplinarity.
They seem more like an upshot of what is commonly referred to in the
literature
on interdisciplinarity as ‘multidisciplinarity’: two
or more disciplines
coming together around a single topic or being considered together
because of
their topical proximity but without any productive integration of their
components (Moran, 2002; Knight, et al., 2013).
Interdisciplinarity, on
the other hand, is seen as a ‘partnership’ of theories and
techniques (Krimsky,
2000: 110) aimed at achieving a ‘synthesis of disciplinary
knowledge’ (Knight et
al., 2013: 144) for the sake of finding a solution or valuable
insight into
a topic too large or complex for a single discipline (Brewer, 1999;
Moran,
2002).This article will not delve into the arguments concerning whether
we
should consider interdisciplinarity to be more valuable than
multidisciplinarity or why interdisciplinarity may currently be viewed
as such
by many funding bodies. Instead, it will now reflect on our conference
so as to
answer the question, if interdisciplinarity is attempted at a
conference
then what issues need to be taken into account in order to facilitate
it?
One reason for the
conference’s lack of
interdisciplinary integration was the deeply ingrained traditional
differences
that exist not only between literary studies and philosophical
aesthetics but
also between analytic and continental philosophy. Methodologically
speaking,
literary theory normally takes the theoretical elements as ancillary to
the
readings which they inform; thus, theoretical frameworks are typically
utilised
in order to reach a reading of a particular literary work or of a
larger
corpus. Within the analytic vein of philosophy of literature, in turn,
individual literary works normally serve as examples to illustrate or
elucidate
theoretical points that have a broader philosophical purchase. Rhetoric
is
another point of divergence. For one thing, literary theorists, who are
typically influenced by the modes of argument developed in Continental
philosophy, tend to use a denser language than aestheticians found in
the
Analytic school. The latter have more of an investment in the ideal of
an
orderly argument heavily anchored to a strong logical thread, whereas
the
former are more prone to the use of excursus. In fact, the
differences
between the various schools are immediately recognisable at most
linguistic
levels, from vocabulary to syntax to the patterns of use of tropes such
as
metaphor or ambiguity. During this conference, there simply
wasn’t enough time
to carefully work through why each school does what they do and have
them
explain, in terms sympathetic to the other traditions, why their
approach is
valuable. As such, debate would often remain within a discipline or
interlocutors would find themselves talking past each other or at a
terminological impasse.
The same time-restrictions
applied to the problem of
background reading. It is possible that researchers working in the
different
disciplines, and their subdivisions, may spend a large portion of their
professional lives knowing of the works of the other traditions only
through
caricature, fading memories from undergraduate courses, or isolated
reading
experiences independent of their disciplinary context and history. It
sometimes
became all-too-apparent in our conference’s proceedings that
where a debate
came to a standoff, the proponents of one discipline not only needed to
say
what they had read but they would have almost needed to deliver a crash
course
in what it is to be an acolyte of that discipline and have one’s
academic life
infused with certain readings, theorists, and concerns in order to
continue
fruitful discussion. A conference does not usually have enough time for
all
participants to familiarise themselves with or be instructed in the
necessary
pre-requisite reading or academic style for a reconciliation
constructive to interdisciplinary
development.
Such issues were part of a
larger feeling that both
fields were, at times, not able to engage with each other on the
other’s
terms. There were some papers and sessions that admirably attempted
this
and sometimes achieved it, at least in part. The interaction between
Peter
Lamarque and Catherine Belsey during the keynote session on
‘fiction’ was noted
by many as moving towards this. The interdisciplinary success of their
session
can be attributed to their collaborative pre-conference communication,
the fact
that Belsey chose to structure her talk as a detailed response to
Lamarque’s
latest book The Opacity of Narrative, and that Lamarque and
Belsey
attempted to articulate their respective positions in terms of the
concept of
‘opacity’. In other words, they used a terminology
accessible to each other and
the different disciplines, directly interacted and actively attempted
to
understand one another, and, whilst disagreeing, worked to minimize
destructive
misunderstandings.
In general, however, there
is still a lot of work to
be done before such results can be attained en masse. Firstly,
as
Lamarque highlighted in the final roundtable, the intersection between
the
various academic approaches to literature still needs to find or make
more
visible those that exemplify an interdisciplinary approach by taking
the time
to address and incorporate the kind of considerations this article has
been
discussing. These may also be the strong, perceptive critics from
‘over the
fence’ who can translate the works from one side in a way
meaningful to the
other as well as translate their responses back. It is these scholars
that can
then supply the works that constitute a shared ground-zero from which
to build.
Secondly, there is a shift in academic mind-set needed for
interdisciplinary
work that some were clearly not used to. Often, for interdisciplinarity
to
work, all the participants need to ‘act not as representatives of
disciplines
but represent themselves, their experiences, values and insights’
(Gasper,
2001: 15). This is not to say that disciplinary allegiance does not
bring with
it a valuable sense of identity and passion based upon something vital
about
the way we assess and interpret the world. However, the bias and
prejudice that
accompanies disciplinary tribalism and training, and the normative
assessment
and ranking of disciplinary ‘types’ of knowledge that
follows from this (for
example, ‘What I learn in literary studies is more relevant
than
philosophy’ or ‘The philosophical method leads to deeper
understanding than
literary analysis’) continue to hinder interdisciplinarity. This
is
particularly visible in higher education where knowledge politics still
play a
large role (Becher et al., 2001; Lélé et al.,
2005; Schmidt,
2007: 314) and the discipline remains in control of appeal and
reputation (if
not funding) and so ‘will mostly play the violin even in
interdisciplinary
work’ (Van Rann, 2000: 67).
Further attempts may reveal
that interdisciplinarity
is not the way forward for some of the themes of the
conference. There
is the possibility that the disciplines are simply engaged in distinct
projects
and that the qualities and important factors of literature may have
already
been divvied up so that once one has chosen a discipline the desired
route to
satisfactory answers has been discovered and there is no need for
interdisciplinary interaction. On the other hand, it does not feel as
though an
interdisciplinary approach to these topics has been carried out with
‘mutually
accessible and acceptable intellectual frameworks’ (Gasper, 2001:
20) and (as
far as possible) discipline-free mindsets in place. Without running a
test case
with ideal conditions, it seems premature to rule the approach out.
Practically, it may be
concluded that in any area
where there is a lack of exemplary translators, and given the time
constraints
of the format in general, conferences are more suited to
multidisciplinarity
rather than ambitious interdisciplinary forays. However, this means
that more
books, workshops, and university modules are needed to supply the focus
and
time needed to practice working as a discipline-free agent as well as
unpack
the different disciplines’ approaches and pre-supposed knowledge.
If a
conference is going to attempt this though, the theme should be
precise
rather than broad to allow for more directed interaction, it should
also
include a highly targeted introductory talk to frame the proceedings,
and there
needs to be a heightened specificity in asking for papers and a
ruthless rigour
in selecting them. It is also important for disciplines and areas new
to
interdisciplinarity to consider how they frame the collaborative nature
of an
event as early as possible and to reflect both before and after
proceedings on
whether an interdisciplinary approach is even the appropriate one.
Ultimately, collaborative
interdisciplinarity is
almost impossible without a willingness to open oneself to and engage
with
projects and self-criticism couched in the other’s terms. This
conference may
not have realised active interdisciplinarity on a large scale as its
perceivable fruits were of the more multidisciplinary whetstone and
allegiance
variety, but, as one feedback form said, ‘the conference showed
me how
relevantly young the discipline of Philosophy and Literature actually
is.
There's still a search for common ground between the two schools, and
best
practice in regards to combining the disciplines.’ For many of
the attendees,
the no-man’s land between the two disciplines is now starkly
apparent. We hope
that at least some will seek to cross it with the above in mind and
find out
whether there is a building ground for answers to the questions of
literature’s
meaning, existence, and continuing value that are greater than the sum
of their
disciplinary parts.
Bibliography
Becher, T., P.R. Trowler
(2001), Academic Tribes
and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines,
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University
Press
Brewer, G. D. (1999),
‘The challenges of
interdisciplinarity’, Policy Sciences, 32, 327-37, http://www.marineresearchnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Brewer1999.pdf,
accessed 9 June 2014
Gasper, D. (2001),
‘Interdisciplinarity: building
bridges, and nurturing a complex ecology of ideas’, ISS
Working Papers -
General Series, http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ems:euriss:19078,
accessed 09 June 2014
Knight, D. B., L. R.
Lattuca, E. W. Kimabll, R. D.
Reason (2013), ‘Understanding Interdisciplinarity: Curricular and
Organizational Features of Undergraduate Interdisciplinary
Programs’, Innovative
Higher Education, 38(2), 143-158, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10755-012-9232-1,
accessed 9 June 14
Krimsky, S. (2000),
‘Perspectives from Social
Scientists and Humanists: Transdisciplinarity for Problems and the
Interstices
of Disciplines’, in Somerville, M. A. and Rapport, D. J. (ed.),Transdisciplinarity:
recreating integrated knowledge, Oxford: EOLSS, pp.109-14
Lélé, S., R.
B. Norgaard (2012), ‘Practicing
Interdisciplinarity’, BioScience, 55 (11), 967-975, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568%282005%29055%5B0967%3API%5D2.0.CO%3B2,
accessed 11 June 2014
Moran, J. (2002), Interdisciplinarity,
New
York: Routledge
Schmidt, J. C. (2007),
‘Knowledge Politics of
Interdisciplinarity: Specifying the type of interdisciplinarity in the
NSF’s
NBIC scenario’, Innovation, 20 (4), 313-328, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/13511610701760721#tabModule,
accessed 9 June 2014
Van Raan, A. F. J. (2000),
‘The Interdisciplinary
Nature of Science: Theoretical Framework and Bibliometric-Empirical
Approach’,
in Stehr, N. and Weingart, P. (ed.), Practising Interdisciplinarity,
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 66-78
[1] The authors would like to
acknowledge Dr Eileen
John, who organized the conference with us, and our sponsors: the
British
Society of Aesthetics, the American Society for Aesthetics, the
Analysis Trust,
and Warwick’s Humanities Research Centre, International Office,
Philosophy
Department and the Institute of Advanced Study.