Category: Professor Meehan

The Proposal: moving from particle to wave to field

On By Professor MeehanIn Professor MeehanLeave a comment

Proposal: Guidelines

The real-world, academic model for the SCE you will complete (in your senior year) is a 25-30 page essay that we scholars publish in journals, books, and other venues, based on extensive research (an Annotated Bibliography due in the fall of your senior year) and substantial drafting and revision (the essay composed in the spring of your senior year). You have likely encountered and started to work on initial ideas in other English courses that could serve as the foundation for the SCE. But you probably don’t know it yet.

So, how do we work toward that substantial project, explore a direction before we know where we are going? There are various models scholars use to explore and develop their initial thinking/reading/writing on the way to more substantial, publishable scholarship: sometimes they’ll take the form of a conference presentation, other times a proposal for a grant or fellowship.

For this assignment, you’ll be writing a substantial proposal for future research. At 1750 words or so (inclusive of abstract), it will be on the longer end for SCE proposals in the English department, but this length is common to professional research proposals and as such will give you the space to fully articulate your research findings and your claims in relation to them.

Guidelines:
1500 words + 250 word abstract. Your project proposal should begin with a re-revised abstract summarizing your proposed project. Remember, that proposed project is essentially an academic article, examples of which you’ve been reading all semester. The body of your proposal should:

  • describe the project, explaining the topic and the significance of the argument;
  • place the work in the context of your field (methodological, geographical, and period-based as applicable);
  • indicate how the project would contribute to that field;
  • be clear about the critical theory and methodology informing your argument; and
  • make sure to situate your work in relation to others. You may use *revised* portions of your literature review to do this.

For some further guidance on an Academic Proposal, consult this resource from the University of Toronto.

Proposal: Brainstorming–Particle/Wave/Field

For further development and complication of your project’s argument as it stands now, use this heuristic (in classical rhetoric: a model or structure to generate or organize thinking for an essay, argument, project, a device for invention) known as the particle/wave/field heuristic. I summarize it below by way of the rhetoric book Form and Surprise in Composition:   Writing and Thinking Across the Curriculum by John Bean and John Ramage [they take the heuristic from the Young, Becker and Pike’s Rhetoric: Discovery and Change]. They suggest it as a method that helps develop an argument on a given topic by enabling the writer to switch perspective systematically. 

First, take your topic X  and view it as a static, unchanging entity (particle): note its distinguishing features, characteristics; consider how this entity differs from other similar things. You will know some of these details and characteristics from your research–how other critics and scholars have defined your topic in the past.

Second, view the same topic as a dynamic changing process (wave): note how it acts and changes through time, grows, develops, decays. Think of this as where your Y enters the topic: issues, questions, problems that you might pose, wanting to learn more about the topic, recognizing (from your research and review) that there are some gaps, there is more to know or do with this topic.

Third, view the topic as a Field, as related to things around it and part of a system, network or ecological environment. What depends on X? What does X depend on? What would happen if X doesn’t exist? Who loves (hates) X? What communities (categories) does X belong to? What is X’s function in a larger system? This is a way to identify critical and theoretical implications for your argument–the larger field and conversation that your study participates in, relates to (and lots of other “reverbs”), potentially revises, but also (this is what is complicated about “field”) is potentially revised by.  This is your stake, your “So What.”

Critical Practice: Literature Review

On By Professor MeehanIn Professor MeehanLeave a comment

The Literature Review

A “literature review” is an extended analysis of the extant critical discussion surrounding a topic in which you are interested. Often, this topic takes the form “subject in author’s text”: “Parentheses in Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass,” “Cannibalism in David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas,” “Queer desire in Toni Morrison’s Sula.” Any critical analysis of a text—or as Kenneth Burke suggests, any critical thinking about anything—relates new ideas to what’s known, responds to questions or problems, which are themselves in response to what is given. The literature review provides context for the new and the known. It is you listening attentively in Burke’s parlor before you put in your oar.

In our studies this semester, we have seen literature reviews sometimes in the introduction, used to set up the argument before the author presents evidence in the body; we have also seen reviews emerge in the body of an article, used to advance evidence and borrow (and/or distinguish) previous critical readings or theoretical insights. Versions of this component of scholarly composition can thus be found in most of the articles you have read for this class this semester. Going back through the readings and studying these moments, normally towards the beginning of a given article, will be very helpful.

Assignment Guidelines: In approximately 2000 words, review 8-10 critical sources on/around/adjacent to your topic. This might sound like a ton, but do not despair! You do not have to (and indeed, shouldn’t) write an equal amount on all sources. Instead, you should focus on outlining the conversation surrounding your topic in broad strokes: which sources seem to be in agreement? Where is there disagreement? Where are there gaps (or “lacunae,” an academic commonplace) or limitations in the research, and why do you think this is the case? (This is where the review sets the stage for your argument in progress: how you will fill those gaps and respond to those limitations). Which sources deserve lengthier explanation and response, and which can attach to these more major ones as footnotes or asides? Most importantly, what kind of narrative do your sources build: what kind of story do they tell about how this author/text/topic/etc. has been treated?

At the top of your review, provide the latest and most refined version of your abstract (this will take the place of your introduction and provide context for what is motivating this critical review of the literature). At the bottom of the review, provide a works cited list of the secondary sources you are reviewing.

For further guidance on the Literature Review, consult this resource from the University of Toronto. Also, revisit the various critical articles we read this semester and observe how those critics engaged in the rhetoric and poetics of the literature review.

Class Workshop:

Each member of the group will do the following to practice and probe the research you are conducting and reviewing.

  1. Critic: Update your research and literature review
    1. Present the latest version of your elevator pitch.
    2. Select one of your sources and present an oral summary of its argument (think abstract).
    3. Identify the uses and/or limitations of this source: Will it deserve lengthier explanation in your review or briefer discussion, perhaps part of a footnote? Are there gaps in the source you could/should fill in?
    4. Compare this source to a few other sources you have found: what are the points of agreement or disagreement you will discuss in your review of the critical conversation?
  2. Group: Provide feedback on the quality of the source + suggestions for further research.
    1. Does it seem credible and substantial for the project? What else might the critic do in reviewing this source?
    2. What else might the critic explore as they continue to research and finalize the literature review? What do you need to understand better that the critic’s research could address?
    3. Research tips: where might the critic find additional sources?

Getting Concrete with your Abstract: messy metonymy

On By Professor MeehanIn Professor MeehanLeave a comment

My messy but productive path toward an abstract that became A Liberal Education in Late Emerson: Readings in the Rhetoric of Mind (2019)

X Y Z
Emerson/James/Whitman Emerson’s rhetoric (late work) Emerson/liberal education
Emerson’s rhetoric Emerson/liberal edu

 

 Emerson/James
Emerson/liberal edu Emerson’s rhetoric Emerson/James
Emerson/liberal (and transformation) Emerson/James Emerson’s rhetoric
Emerson/James Emerson (and James)/liberal edu Emerson’s rhetoric
Emerson’s rhetoric [5/21/17] Emerson/James/Whitman/ Emerson/liberal

[5/17]I am working on Emerson’s rhetoric of metonymy [the late rhetorical emerson] to learn more about Emerson’s rhetorical relation to Whitman/James/Eliot so that my readers can better understand/care about Emerson’s engagement with liberal education.

Abstract (from publishers website):

Recent scholarship has inspired growing interest in the later work of Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) and a recognition that the conventional view of an aging Emerson, distant from public matters and limited by declining mental powers, needs rethinking. Sean Meehan’s book reclaims three important but critically neglected aspects of the late Emerson’s “mind”: first, his engagement with rhetoric, conceived as the organizing power of mind and, unconventionally, characterized by the trope “metonymy”; second, his public engagement with the ideals of liberal education and debates in higher education reform early in the period (1860-1910) that saw the emergence of the modern university; and third, his intellectual relation to significant figures from this age of educational transformation: Walt Whitman, William James, Harvard president Charles W. Eliot, and W. E. B. Du Bois, Harvard’s first African American PhD. Meehan argues that the late Emerson educates through the “rhetorical liberal arts,” and he thereby rethinks Emerson’s influence as rhetorical lessons in the traditional pedagogy and classical curriculum of the liberal arts college. Emerson’s rhetoric of mind informs and complicates these lessons since the classical ideal of a general education in the common bonds of knowledge counters the emerging American university and its specialization of thought within isolated departments.

 

The breakdown of gender hierarchies in Paradise Lost: Applying feminist theory to Milton

On By ndblake2In Nick, Professor MeehanLeave a comment

In the epic poem Paradise Lost by John Milton, many principles of feminist criticism can be applied to the text. The character of eve is depicted as unequal to her counterpart, Adam, and is placed into a powerless position that she can only break free from by breaking the one rule of Eden-eating from the forbidden fruit or “fruit of knowledge”. It is interesting to see how Milton plays around with gender structures within the text because he sets it up as a typical patriarchal structure but then seemingly breaks it down using a variety of methods. I would also argue that Milton identifies with Eve more than any other character in the text, the only exception being Satan.
In Paradise Lost, in every domain where patriarchy reigns (which is pretty much everywhere), woman is other, and is objectified, marginalized, and defined at times only by difference from male norms. This is true of Eve, as she is unable to sit in on Adam’s conversations with Michael because she is seen as inferior or not as smart as him. When reading this text, it is also apparent that gender issues play a part in every aspect of Adam and Eve’s human experience. Adam and Eve’s relationship is conflicting, because Adam views Eve as his beautiful counterpart, but to the point at times that he may look at her as an object rather than her own person. Eve is aware that she is viewed as an other and takes all of her oppression into account when she decides to eat the forbidden fruit.

The hierarchy between Eve and Adam and Adam and God is first established in Book IV when we see Eve awake after being created. When Eve explains to Adam her first memories of waking up, she tells him “My other half: with that thy gentle hand/Seiz’d mine, I yielded, and from that time see/How beauty is excelled by manly grace” (Milton, 4.487-489). Eve yields to Adam as her authority figure firstly because she was created out of him and that he was created by God, but then also submits to his power since she does not have direct access to God and he does. This hierarchy is essential to Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit because much of her reasoning has to do with her feeling inferior and being at the bottom of her hierarchy. She must obtain her information about anything from Adam, who obtains his information from the angel Raphael, who in turn obtains his information from God. Eve’s access to information is limited, and she is very much trapped in her lowly position. The forbidden fruit poses as her one way to gain more power and rise out of this state. Rather than the person that doomed mankind to sin, Milton instead paints Eve as a hero in a way through her decision to eat the forbidden fruit and one can view the action as her breaking out of her gender hierarchy that she is a part of.

The imagery of darkness and shade in Eve’s story works as a connection to Milton’s blindness. This is one of the ways that Milton identifies himself with Eve as opposed to other characters such as Adam. We also find out in Book XII that Eve gains the same information that Adam received from Michael, but through God in her dreams. This is a clear parallel to Milton who notes in Book XII “in darkness, and with dangers compast round,/and solitude; yet not alone, while thou/visit’st my slumbers Nightly, or when Morn/purples the East: still govern thou my Song” (Milton, 7.26-29). In this way Milton is purposefully attributing his own qualities to Eve, thus making her one the most important figures in driving Milton’s argument.

Sources cited:

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Complete Poems and Major Prose, edited by Merritt Y. Hughes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2003, pp. 173–469.

Feminist Criticism and Angela Carter: Burning Down the Patriarchy?

On By nicolehatfield99In Professor MeehanLeave a comment

Within feminist criticism, there is, of course, an inherent attempt to explain the relationship between men and women in order to critique the life-long oppression and exploitation of women. The “French feminist psychoanalytic” and “the male gaze” seek to define the internalized effects of a patriarchal system on women. The French feminist psychoanalytic theory is “interested in patriarchy’s influence on women’s psychological experience and creativity,” thus this mode of criticism transcends economic, political, and social structures (Tyson 95). Within feminist criticism, there seems to be a micro and macro-level of analysis that could be applied; for example, one could look at the larger economic and gender relationships within a text, or one could look at the psychological effects male power has on a specific character. In literature, I think that analyzing the presence of a male gaze would allow for a better interpretation of the female character. If the critic, or reader, acknowledged the presence of the male gaze, then they will be better able to form judgments on how gender is working in the text and why the author decided to include the male gaze. The male gaze is a projection onto the female character, therefore, the female character’s perception of herself and the world are altered. In texts where there is a female protagonist, how can that protagonist escape the male gaze? Once a female character is under the male gaze, can she regain power and a true sense of self? Tyson introduces the idea of a “patriarchal woman,” or “a woman who has internalized the norms and values of patriarchy, which can be defined, in short, as any culture that privileges men by promoting traditional gender roles” (Tyson 102). If this is the case, then what allows a text to move beyond traditional gender norms, and does female power and expression exist only because of the patriarchy? To what extent must a text conform to a structure in order to then break it?

Something I am specifically interested in is how a female author can “burn down the patriarchy” without first conforming to a patriarchal society or set of norms. For example, to deconstruct the patriarchy, an author must first create the space and narrative for male power to rule. This ironic and paradoxical structure conforms to the male gaze in some ways, for the author must accept the “patriarchy’s influence on women’s psychological experience and creativity,” as explained by French feminist psychoanalytical theory, and use the patriarchy as a structure to build their creative work off of (Tyson 95). In Angela Carter’s The Magic Toyshop, Carter creatively breaks down the patriarchy by using satire and elements of the French feminist psychoanalytic theory. Her satirization of the patriarchy complicates her text and alludes to the complex relationship between female freedom and the ever-present patriarchy. Carter comically conforms to and then breaks the male gaze by creating a parody puppet-show of Leda and Swan in which Uncle Philip (male power) pulls the strings and Melanie (young protagonist) plays Leda. While the myth of Leda and the Swan is disturbing and explicitly violates the female body, Carter gives Melanie the power to laugh at Uncle Philip and the swan, for Melanie observes that “it was a grotesque parody of a swan… she nearly laughed again to see its lumbering process” (Carter 165). Carter ironically deconstructs myths, like Leda and the Swan, to allude to how the patriarchy is also a myth that is reinforced by society. The swan symbolizes the patriarchy and as it clumsily walks about Uncle Philip’s dumpy stage, Carter is explicitly humiliating the charade of male dominance. In this way, a psychoanalytic critic may argue that the patriarchy, as seen in Carter’s novel, exists within our subconscious and social levels. While Carter has Melanie make fun of Uncle Philip’s swan, she also creates moments of intense violence and fear; therefore, I think it would be worth exploring how Carter balances gendered power and upholds an ironic tone so that the violent actions against women ultimately point towards a feminist analysis of the text. In this way, feminist theory is reliant on other theories like deconstructionism and psychoanalytical theory to bring meaning to the text’s symbolic gestures and structural choices. 

7974545622e014e86f46a9eb0bb39ccd
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/65231894581154509/?lp=true

 

Works Cited

Carter, Angela. The Magic Toyshop. Penguin Books, 1996.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015

 

Marxist Criticism: more matter, less art

On By Professor MeehanIn Professor MeehanLeave a comment
Atget_-_Avenue_des_Gobelins
Atget (1927)

Marxist criticism is arguably the most politically and socially engaged of the various critical theories we have explored. As Tyson describes it, Marxist criticism has an agenda: “If  a work criticizes or invites us to criticize oppressive socioeconomic forces, then it may be said to have a Marxist agenda.” But the name “Marx,” and certainly the political legacy of Marxism, evoke various abstracted images that will strike many as problematic and at best irrelevant for English majors. What do we do?

Forget the abstractions and think about the materials. And in the process, we can think more about the ideologies (another keyword in Marxist theory) that are at work in the texts we interpret, and also at work in our interpretations.

In focusing on class and the socioeconomic forces that inform our beliefs, politics, culture, and society, Marxism extends the discussion of identity we began with African American criticism and continued with critical theories of gender and sexuality. Class and economics are another marker and shaper of identity. And as Marxists would argue, class is often the least recognized determinant of identity due to the often hidden (occluded) powers of capitalist ideology.

I have borrowed elements of Marxist literary and cultural criticism second hand, from the German critic Walter Benjamin. We will be reading his famous essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” from 1936. I studied and applied Benjamin to my doctoral dissertation, since he provides insights on rethinking art from the perspective of photography. That’s what I was interested in doing with 19th c American autobiography, a study that eventually became my first book: Mediating American Autobiography: Photography in Emerson, Thoreau, Douglass, and Whitman.

The key insight from Benjamin, and in my admittedly otherwise limited view, a key to understanding the uses of Marxist criticism, is the focus on materiality. We have cultural works and texts–all the things you are thinking about for your projects, or that you have been studying and reading. Those works and texts, though they come to us (usually) as finished products, in fact those products are abstracted from the concrete social and economic contexts in which they were produced. Marxism literary criticism trains its eye on rethinking cultural works by way of their material conditions. If we want to think more about the material conditions of the works we are studying, reading, writing, then Marxist theory might be of use. And if we want to think about what Benjamin calls the “politics of art,” this critical theory is very relevant.

One useful distinction he makes, thinking about photography as a technology of reproduction that undermines (and thus politicizes) traditional art and its aura: exhibition value displaces cult value. Consider this image from the photographer Atget that Benjamin has in mind, and contrast with something like a Van Gogh. What’s the difference, and how might that difference be viewed in terms of politics?

Applications.

As an application, in addition to the Benjamin essay, I think of the Robert Pinsky poem “Shirt.”  [Here is Pinsky reading it in a video from the New Yorker.] We can read this text from any and all of the critical perspectives studied thus far: New Criticism/Formalism, Structuralism, Deconstruction, Reader Response, Psychoanalytic, New Historicism, Critical Race, Postcolonial, Gender/Sexuality.

What does Marxist critical theory help us to see and do with this poem? Would you say that this poem is particularly relevant for a Marxist reading? And if so, are there texts that are less relevant? How might concepts and questions from Marxist criticism be of use to you in the development of your seminar project?

For another example that foregrounds, or perhaps re-envisions, the materiality of reading and literacy, consider this scene from the recent movie The Post. We are reminded of the labor that goes into writing, the production and the process of getting words into print.

Rhetorical Materials.

If we focus more materially and deliberately on our own ideologies (call them also “theories” and “critical perspectives” and “interpretations”), we will strengthen our argumentation. Marxist criticism, in its concern with “false consciousness” and the belief that every idea potentially masks or hides its social and political conditions, can help us think more about our rhetoric: credibility, validity, counterargument.

With our seminar projects, we should address the credibility of our critical sources. What makes a source credible? [In the older rhetorical terms used by Aristotle, this is the appeal to ethos]

We need to think about the validity of our reasoning, specifically the warrants linking our reasons to our claim [This is a matter of logos, the presentation of our evidence and logic. For further discussion, see chapter 11 in The Craft of Research]

We must also consider the potential weaknesses in our own argument and the potential strengths in perspectives other than our own. In other words, take up a counterargument. [Related to logos, this is also an appeal to pathos]

 

 

 

Feminism, Gender, and Sexuality: bodies that matter

On By Professor MeehanIn Professor MeehanLeave a comment

Where, when, how, why, and in what forms do we experience gender and sexuality in life? In literature and culture–in other words, as readers/writers/scholars in English? Much as we discussed recently with postcolonial criticism and its overlapping interest in issues of race, I propose that we interrogate how various concepts and keywords from feminist criticism, gender and sexuality studies, and queer theory speak to our experiences with literature and culture.

For a possible application this week, I turn our attention to the writer Shelley Jackson. Her work brings to mind several concepts and issues that intersect with the reading this week, perhaps most prominently the idea of “ecriture feminine” from Cixous and French feminism: a writing that is “fluidly organized and freely associative” and and “resists partriarchal modes of thinking and writing” (Tyson 96).

Jackson engages with this and other critical theories while also performing it in her hypertext novel Patchwork Girl, her imaginative rewriting and extension of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Unfortunately, you need special software to “run” this computer-based novel (and my copy is out of date). To get a sense of how hypertext reads, take a look at Jackson’s essay/memoir “My Body”–this one you can read since it is on the web. And here is Jackson writing about hypertext and Patchwork Girl, in a critical essay “Stitch Bitch.” Notice how she describes hypertext as a “feminine” writing:

Bad writing is all flesh, and dirty flesh at that: clogged with a build-up of clutter and crud, knick-knacks and fripperies encrusted on every surface, a kind of gluey scum gathering in the chinks. Hypertext is everything that for centuries has been damned by its association with the feminine (which has also, by the way, been damned by its association with it, in a bizarre mutual proof without any fixed term). It’s dispersed, languorous, flaunting its charms all over the courtyard. Like flaccid beauties in a harem, you might say, if you wanted to inspire a rigorous distaste for it. Hypertext then, is what literature has edited out: the feminine. (That is not to say that only women can produce it. Women have no more natural gift for the feminine than men do.)

Another text by Shelley Jackson extends her interest in the intersectionality of writing and gender and the body in some remarkably vivid ways. Check out “Skin: A Mortal Work of Art,” a text published on the bodies of 2095 volunteers.

Jackson’s work as a contemporary writer and performance artist might be something to pursue for further research, perhaps an SCE project. But even if we don’t want to study a contemporary writer thoroughly engaged in the issues and actual texts of feminist and gender theory (she quotes Derrida, Cixous, and others in Patchwork Girl), how might concepts from those theories apply to other texts and authors elsewhere in our study of English, even works that might not seem to be particularly relevant for thinking about gender and sexuality.  As we discussed last week, at the very least, we can seek out our necessary “counter-discourse.” And in the process, we might discover that a work in question is more gendered or queer than we first assumed.

For example, we could return to Emerson’s “American Scholar” and give more thought to his gendering of the scholar, ‘Man Thinking.” What are the implications? What questions and problems regarding this passage do the critical theories of gender and sexuality help us identify? Are there gendered or queer or, as Halberstam puts it, “trans*” readings of the passage we could or should consider?

It is one of those fables, which, out of an unknown antiquity, convey an unlooked-for wisdom, that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men, that he might be more helpful to himself; just as the hand was divided into fingers, the better to answer its end.

The old fable covers a doctrine ever new and sublime; that there is One Man, — present to all particular men only partially, or through one faculty; and that you must take the whole society to find the whole man. Man is not a farmer, or a professor, or an engineer, but he is all. Man is priest, and scholar, and statesman, and producer, and soldier. In the divided or social state, these functions are parcelled out to individuals, each of whom aims to do his stint of the joint work, whilst each other performs his. The fable implies, that the individual, to possess himself, must sometimes return from his own labor to embrace all the other laborers. But unfortunately, this original unit, this fountain of power, has been so distributed to multitudes, has been so minutely subdivided and peddled out, that it is spilled into drops, and cannot be gathered. The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters, — a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.

Man is thus metamorphosed into a thing, into many things. The planter, who is Man sent out into the field to gather food, is seldom cheered by any idea of the true dignity of his ministry. He sees his bushel and his cart, and nothing beyond, and sinks into the farmer, instead of Man on the farm. The tradesman scarcely ever gives an ideal worth to his work, but is ridden by the routine of his craft, and the soul is subject to dollars. The priest becomes a form; the attorney, a statute-book; the mechanic, a machine; the sailor, a rope of a ship.

In this distribution of functions, the scholar is the delegated intellect. In the right state, he is, Man Thinking. In the degenerate state, when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men’s thinking.

In this view of him, as Man Thinking, the theory of his office is contained. Him nature solicits with all her placid, all her monitory pictures; him the past instructs; him the future invites. Is not, indeed, every man a student, and do not all things exist for the student’s behoof? And, finally, is not the true scholar the only true master? But the old oracle said, `All things have two handles: beware of the wrong one.’ In life, too often, the scholar errs with mankind and forfeits his privilege. Let us see him in his school, and consider him in reference to the main influences he receives.

 

My subtitle echoes the title of an important theoretical work in gender and sexuality studies by the philosopher Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” 

Tyson refers to some cultures that do not have a male/female gender binary. Here is discussion of a photographer exploring that with regard to Tahitian culture.

 

Updated Elevator Pitch: Reader Response to Paradise Lost in colonial American rhetoric

On By ndblake2In Nick, Professor MeehanLeave a comment

Throughout the epic poem Paradise Lost by John Milton, there are many instances in which the reader is presented with complex ideas that are soon after refuted, causing a joint empowerment and humiliation of the reader. It seems as though the text is written specifically to influence the reader to Milton’s opinions on power and free thinking while simultaneously giving readers the power to make their own conclusions about what Milton is presenting to them. I plan to argue in my seminar project that Milton’s awareness and intentional engagement with his reader throughout Paradise Lost adds to the effectiveness and success of the text. The reception of this epic poem in 18th century colonial America is of particular importance due to the significant influence of Puritan and republican themes portrayed in Paradise Lost on the foundation of America’s government and culture.
This seminar project will work in conjunction with my thesis to help analyze secondary sources and incorporate different literary criticisms into my paper. I want to incorporate reader-response criticism specifically into the project because I feel that my argument can be best supplemented using this criticism and I believe that it will help in the development of my SCE paper as well. Creating a connection between Paradise Lost and particular influences on the American Revolution using reader-response criticism will allow for a greater understanding of Milton’s political undertones in his writing and the subsequent possibility of influence from Paradise Lost into aspects of the American Revolution. Focusing in on the rhetoric of colonial America such as pamphlets and persuasive texts such as Common Sense by Thomas Paine and seeing the impact of Milton in those texts will help me to see more directly how large of an impact Milton’s ideas had on the American revolution.
Evidence will be drawn from Paradise Lost itself, as well as secondary sources that focus on the reader-response and interaction between Milton and his readers in Paradise Lost. Some key words I would like to incorporate into this project are reader experience, intention, affective stylistics, and resymbolization. By assessing the relationship between Milton and his readers in Paradise Lost, I can gain a better understanding of the text itself and how it could have influenced other writers and events. I will be further analyzing Paradise Lost and the Rise of the American Republic by Lydia Schulman as part of my seminar project.
Works Cited:
Fish, Stanley. “Surprised by Sin” – Stanley Fish | Harvard University Press, https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674857476
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Schulman, Lydia D. Paradise Lost and the Rise of the American Republic. Northeastern Univ. Press, 1992.

Updated Elevator Pitch; Nicole Hatfield

On By nicolehatfield99In Professor MeehanLeave a comment

X: I am working on the transparent and ecocritical portrayal of land injustice among the Australian Aboriginal people in Judith Wright’s collected poetry. 

Y: With regard to land injustice, I am interested in how Judith Wright (a white woman) addresses her whiteness and inherent guilt when writing about environmental issues and racial injustices in Australia. Specifically, how does she bridge the gap between literary activism, which deliberately calls out political and social issues, and poetics? To what extent has environmental literature shifted from being romantic, idealistic, and existential? And does this shift reflect the modern urgency for policy change and literary activism? Does Judith Wright participate in an active conversation about systemic racism and land injustice, to what extent are her poems doing cultural work? 

Z: Using Judith Wright’s poetry as an example of literary activism, I hope to show how there is a concrete connection between environmental injustice and the oppression of the Aboriginal people. If we rethink how poetry uses natural imagery and reflective metaphors, we can understand the cultural connections to people and their landscape. In addition, in grounding her poetry in realistic landscapes and environments, Wright participates in an environmental conversation about humanity’s degradation of both land and marginalized groups of people. 

Sources:

  1. Slow Violence And The Environmentalism Of The Poor by Rob Nixon
  2. Bad Environmentalism by Nicole Seymour 

Postcolonial Criticism: double consciousness and slow violence

On By Professor MeehanIn Professor MeehanLeave a comment

We observed “double consciousness,” one of the keywords of African American criticism and theory, at work in Frederick Douglass’s Narrative. It’s a phrase that takes us back to our first reading and Spivak’s notion of the double bind. You might recall at that time that I heard echoes there of the phrase “double consciousness” coined by Emerson (thinking of Plato), but also the version made more famous later by the African American essayist W. E. B. Du Bois (in Souls of Black Folk, 1903).

There are lots of new keywords and concepts we encounter in postcolonial criticism, but also much that relates to issues and ideas from African American and critical race theory. One way to explore them further would be to continue to listen and look for issues of “double consciousness” in postcolonial concepts such as the following:

  • mimicry
  • unhomeliness/unhomed
  • diaspora
  • othering
  • hybridity
  • intersectionality
  • margin/center
  • canonical counter-discourse

Indeed, the very disputes that are ongoing within postcolonial critical discourse, recounted by Tyson (is it still relevant? has globalization put an end to postcolonialism?) speak to another kind of double consciousness. On the one hand it seems to be a thing of the past, no longer relevant; on the other hand, as Rob Nixon argues (discussed by Tyson), postcolonial criticism can be very relevant to current matters such as environmentalism. And as we learn from Toni Morrison and her conception of “whiteness” and the “Africanist presence” in American literature, these implications of double consciousness are in the texts we read, even when we don’t (initially) see them.

I would take it a step further, remembering the rhetorical principle from Kenneth Burke: every way of seeing is a way of not seeing. In order to make a persuasive and informative argument, regardless of our texts, we need to consider and explore the double consciousness of our argument. We need to engage in counter-discourse with our own position, and risk the unhomeliness of our ideas. What other perspectives might I consider, even if I don’t think (initially) they are relevant? What changes in my perspective when I do so? A more persuasive argument, in the language of postcolonial theory, is rhetorically hybrid and intersectional.

For those interested in Rob Nixon’s scholarship, combining environmental literary theory and criticism with postcolonial theory, check out his 2011 book Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Our library has a copy. It’s quite stunning.

And for a recent application of perspectives raised by both critical race and postcolonial theory, consider this NY Times discussion by Jenna Wortham, “White Filmmakers Addressing (Or Avoiding) Whiteness Onscreen.”

 

African American Criticism: Within the Circle

On By Professor MeehanIn Professor MeehanLeave a comment

African American literature has been around a long time. The critical study of African American literature, or African American criticism, emerged more recently, shaped in part by social and political changes, and guided in part by critical theories such as deconstruction and new historicism. If African American literature was largely excluded from American literary history until the twentieth century, we can now say (as budding new historicists) that the exclusion was a discursive formation. It was not a matter of objective history, but the inherent subjectivity of history as discourse. Knowledge is power, and the powers that be determine what counts as knowledge.

Frederick Douglass knew a thing or two about this overlap of power and knowledge. Here is the beginnings of an important text in the African American literary tradition, Frederick Douglass’ first autobiography, the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave: Written by Himself (1845). The frontispiece and the title page.

First, review: How might we read this text, or begin to read its beginnings, informed by new historicism and cultural criticism? [What would Foucault say?] Or further back: Structuralism and Deconstruction? Reader Response? Psychoanalytic? New Criticism?

Next, interrogation: How can we read this text through the lenses of African American criticism and theory? What do we see that we might not have seen or considered previously? [What would Toni Morrison or Henry Louis Gates, Jr., say?] What are the complications that this text presents us with, and that these critical theories help us to address? As always, what are the uses and limits? To take up a complicated passage, there is this moment from the end of Doulgass’ second chapter.

 I did not, when a slave, understand the deep meaning of those rude and apparently incoherent songs. I was myself within the circle; so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear. They told a tale of woe which was then altogether beyond my feeble comprehension; they were tones loud, long, and deep; they breathed the prayer and complaint of souls boiling over with the bitterest anguish. Every tone was a testimony against slavery, and a prayer to God for deliverance from chains. The hearing of those wild notes always depressed my spirit, and filled me with ineffable sadness. I have frequently found myself in tears while hearing them. The mere recurrence to those songs, even now, afflicts me; and while I am writing these lines, an expression of feeling has already found its way down my cheek. To those songs I trace my first glimmering conception of the dehumanizing character of slavery. I can never get rid of that conception. Those songs still follow me, to deepen my hatred of slavery, and quicken my sympathies for my brethren in bonds. If any one wishes to be impressed with the soul-killing effects of slavery, let him go to Colonel Lloyd’s plantation, and, on allowance-day, place himself in the deep pine woods, and there let him, in silence, analyze the sounds that shall pass through the chambers of his soul,–and if he is not thus impressed, it will only be because “there is no flesh in his obdurate heart.”

I have often been utterly astonished, since I came to the north, to find persons who could speak of the singing, among slaves, as evidence of their contentment and happiness. It is impossible to conceive of a greater mistake. Slaves sing most when they are most unhappy. The songs of the slave represent the sorrows of his heart; and he is relieved by them, only as an aching heart is relieved by its tears. At least, such is my experience. I have often sung to drown my sorrow, but seldom to express my happiness. Crying for joy, and singing for joy, were alike uncommon to me while in the jaws of slavery. The singing of a man cast away upon a desolate island might be as appropriately considered as evidence of contentment and happiness, as the singing of a slave; the songs of the one and of the other are prompted by the same emotion.

Finally, some applied thinking: How might you apply aspects of this criticism to your studies, to your emerging seminar project? What if you are not focusing on a text by an African American author–what then? Consider borrowing theoretical insights from Toni Morrison and her argument (in Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination) for the Africanist presence in American literature by white authors.

Using New Historicism to rethink culture

On By ndblake2In Nick, Professor MeehanLeave a comment

While new historicism lacks a specific or clearer methodology than other criticisms, its most beneficial aspects lie in its progressive outlook and openness to subjective analyses of historical events and texts. Unlike old historicism, new historicism recognizes the fact that a historical analysis can never be truly objective because each person brings their own influences with them when viewing a particular event of text in time. This has allowed for new analysis on old literature or events that were deemed to be objectively and fully analyzed before a new critic was able to think about it differently using new historicism. Possibly one of its greatest contributions to the literary community is the fact that it allowed for critics to rethink and look at an old historical event or text in a different way when its meaning was at one time thought to be set in stone.
As shown through professor Rydel’s essay on sexual violence in medieval narrative, there are many different ways to view a narrative and provide your own perspective on a topic. Professor Rydel was able to shine some light on the fact that there were actually some male writers who gave voice to women through their narrative such as Gilte did with his legend about Winifred. She uses a feminist lens to analyze the Golden Legend story, noting that “Winifred’s quick thinking, determination to escape, and desire to live result in a permutation of the genre that would have been highly visible within the context of the collection” (Rydel). This view that the depiction of Winifred’s story and a community coming together to give voice to her allowed for the transformation of a genre was qualified through a new historicism way of thinking as opposed to traditional historians who would’ve only been concerned about what happened and what that tells us about the history of the story.
I may consider incorporating new historicism into my own analysis of Paradise Lost and how it could have affected colonial America in terms of the anti-establishment rhetoric that was popular in 18th century America during its separation from England. While my Junior seminar project will be more specifically focusing in on reader-response criticism to Paradise Lost, I can incorporate larger ideas from new historicism such as personal identity being shaped by the culture in which it emerges to help explain Milton’s narrative decisions and literary techniques.

Rydel, Courtney. “Lengendary Resistance: Critiquing Rape Culture in Virgin Martyr Passions.”

Social Construction and New Historical Criticism

On By Meg WalshIn Megan, Professor MeehanLeave a comment

New Historical Criticism, rather than seeing and analyzing historical events from a linear, objective perspective, approaches the past from a sociological lens. In New Historical Criticism, historical texts are analyzed with a focus on socioeconomic and cultural contextualization. Lois Tyson writes in “Critical Theory Today” that new historicists believe “there is no such thing as a presentation of facts; there is only interpretation” (269). A traditional, linear understanding of history presents only one objective version of reality. However, New Historical Criticism would argue that there are many different realities; each person has their own subjective worldview or “selfhood” which is influenced both by their individual personhood and by the society or culture they develop in (269). History is subjective, and there are multiple sides to every story. The limitation to this subjectivity is that usually only one side of the story is shown. The history that Americans learn in elementary school is not necessarily inclusive of multiple perspectives. History is often presented in an objective manner, presenting one version of reality as the truth. This “truth” often serves an existing power structure (271). Whoever controls the dominant narrative in society has the power to decide what is seen as objective. For example, the Church, a long-standing power structure, has produced the narrative that homosexuality is a sexual ‘perversion’ (271). The reason for this belief’s continuing popularity is because of the prominence of the social construct of the Church and the power it holds in society. Michael Foucault has suggested that all definitions of ‘insanity,’ ‘crime,’ and sexual ‘perversion’ are social constructs by meanings of which ruling powers maintain their control. We accept these definitions as ‘natural’ only because they are so ingrained in our culture’ (271). One can see form this quote that New Historical Criticism is rooted in sociological concepts. Sociologists, as well as New Historical Critics, believe that “what is “right,” “natural,” and “normal” are matters of definition (271). What is “true”, therefore, is subjective. The idea of subjectivity naturally lends itself to the theory of social constructs. Social constructionism is a theory first written about in “The Social Construction of Reality” by Peter L. Bergeer and Thomas Luckman in 1966. Essentially, social constructionists believe that human beings create their conceptualization of the world socially. Because of this, things that we believe to be true or objective often depend upon others’ perception of the same things. Perceptions can change over time, and as a society changes, so do its constructions. Traditional historicism tends to believe that societies change in a progressive, linear way. However, because of social constructionism, New Historical Critics believe that the way societies change over time is more subjective: “History cannot be understood simply as a linear progression of events. At any given point in history, any given culture may be progressing in some areas and regressing in others” (269). Each different historical event may be viewed as progressive or regressive within certain communities because of the social constructions that they have come to view as “natural” or “normal”. New Historical and Cultural Criticism tends to question these ideas and view history in multiple different perspectives, attempting to apply subjectivity to social constructions. For my further reading, I reread “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien. O’Brien’s book contains many stories from soldiers fighting in the Vietnam War, a war much disputed by those not fighting it. This book revealed to me how soldiers struggle with the social construction of war, and the impact that this war has on their lives during and after the war. This book made it obvious to me how multiple perspectives are necessary in order to fully understand historical events and the breadth of human experience. O’Brien gives a chilling insight into the minds of soldiers in the midst of atrocities with the weight of the world’s expectations and their own actions on their shoulders. This book made me rethink my assumptions about the Vietnam War and about how history is presented from positions of power.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015

History and Literature as a Cultural Spectrum

On By nicolehatfield99In Professor MeehanLeave a comment

Within new historical and cultural criticisms, a literary text “functions as a part of a continuum with other historical and cultural texts from the same period” (Tyson 285). Observing the historical and cultural context of a text bridges the gap between the literary and the real-world, thus making the text applicable to realistic and shared experiences. I feel that new historical and cultural criticism allows texts to give voices to those to the marginalized. Tyson defines this literary theory using the term discourse which is “a social language created by particular cultural conditions,” and this refers to the shared experiences of a culture and how a text can reflect those experiences. Discourse “draws attention to the role of language as the vehicle of ideology” and is dependent upon time period and situation because discourse is never a permanent state (Tyson 270). This idea makes me question the permanency of literature and to what extent can a text reference history while still being relevant to the current time period. Does new historical and cultural criticism limit the sustainability of a text or does it put the work on the reader to learn about historical context and periodization? To what extent does literature retain its relevance as time goes on? Is literature and history both cyclical entities and does literature always inherently evoke a historical and cultural reading because of its social implications such as publishing dates and popularity? In general, I think that cultural criticism seeks to define texts as social conversations and archives that do cultural work regardless of the time period.

Professor Rydel’s talk about new historicism and her own critical essay (dealing with the middle ages) demonstrated how both close reading and cultural criticism can form a strong argument. In addition, Professor Rydel drew a long timeline/flow chart of all the different versions and translations of a primary text. This visual aid helped me visualize how history, even book or publication history, is all connected to the text and how the audience interprets that text. 

In Le Thi Diem Thuy’s novel, The Gangster We Are All Looking For Thuy writes about the immigrant experience. Although the novel is set in 1978 when there was a great influx of Vietnamese immigrants to the United States, the novel is still relevant today for it transcends generations and can be applied to other cultural groups. In the following excerpt from her novel, Thuy uses new historicism and intersectionality to bridge the gap between figurative language/story and actual, social issues.  (Thuy pg 52):

Screen Shot 2019-10-03 at 8.47.00 PM.png

In the above excerpt, the boys jumping off of the railing and into the pool are apart of the narrator’s predominantly immigrant community. Whereas the landlord is a white America, the boys are of mixed race and make up a marginalized community. Prior to this passage, the neighborhood community is described as being filthy and full of mayhem and this usually the case for marginalized communities that are treated as the “other” in America. Due to systemic racism and the otherization of immigrants, this community is already separated from the rest of the state. The boys fly off of the second-floor railing and into the pool, and these striking images symbolize the immigrant’s dream to attain the “American dream,” or freedom. Despite their shortcomings, the boys find freedom in falling and crashing into the water. Throughout the novel, the water represents home and their journey to America; therefore, they metaphorically jump into a sense of belongingness and make this foreign country their home. However, the landlord is quick to say that they are “going to break your [their] necks!” and this represents how white America often tries to discourage the immigrant from succeeding. The boys literally fly over the landlord, thus reversing the power dynamic and alluding to the social tension between immigrants and white Americans. Cultural assimilation and the strangeness associated with a new land are all topics covered in this novel. While the novel does not give an explicit history of the immigrant’s experience or the racially-charged prejudices of the time, things like the author’s bio and basic plot points infer that this text is making a cultural critique. The very basic fact that this novel was published and circulated infers that it is historical and impactful. Therefore, even though Thuy uses magical realism, a child’s perspective, and a nonlinear narrative her story connects to a greater history of the immigrant’s experience. I believe that you cannot take the history or cultural context out of a novel or text. Like Professor Rydel’s paper, a story can always be analyzed on a micro (within the text) and macro (outside of the text) way, but I believe that a strong argument considers both of these things. 

Works Cited

Lê Thi Diem Thúy. The Gangster We Are All Looking For. Anchor Books, 2016.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015

 

Elevator Speech: Reader-Response Criticism applied to Paradise Lost

On By ndblake2In Nick, Professor MeehanLeave a comment

Throughout the epic poem Paradise Lost by John Milton, there are many instances in which the reader is presented with complex ideas that are soon after refuted, causing a joint empowerment and humiliation of the reader. It seems as though the text is written specifically to influence the reader to Milton’s opinions on power and free thinking while simultaneously giving readers the power to make their own conclusions about what Milton is presenting to them. I plan to argue in my seminar project that Milton’s awareness and intentional engagement with his reader throughout Paradise Lost adds to the effectiveness and success of the text. I want to incorporate reader-response criticism specifically into the project because I feel that my argument can be best supplemented using this criticism and I believe that it will help in the development of my SCE paper as well. Creating a connection between Paradise Lost and particular influences on the American Revolution using reader-response criticism will allow for a greater understanding of Milton’s political undertones in his writing and the subsequent possibility of influence from Paradise Lost into aspects of the American Revolution. Evidence will be drawn from Paradise Lost itself, as well as secondary sources that focus on the reader-response and interaction between Milton and his readers in Paradise Lost. Some key words I would like to incorporate into this project are reader experience, intention, affective stylistics, and resymbolization. By assessing the relationship between Milton an his readers in Paradise Lost, I can gain a better understanding of the text itself and how it could have influenced other writers and events.

Works Cited:
Fish, Stanley. “Surprised by Sin” – Stanley Fish | Harvard University Press, https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674857476
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Schulman, Lydia D. Paradise Lost and the Rise of the American Republic. Northeastern Univ. Press, 1992.