File spoon-archives/spoon-announcements.archive/spoon-announcements_1998/spoon-announcements.9804, message 4


Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 16:45:43 -0700
From: "Sharon B. Oster" <sharono-AT-ucla.edu>
Subject: SPOON-ANN: CFP: Ed. Volume: Rethinking Poststructuralism


 [Spoon-Announcements is a moderated list for distributing info of
 wide enough interest without cross-posting.  To unsub, send the message
 "unsubscribe spoon-announcements" to majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]


CALL FOR PAPERS/ EDITED VOLUME

Title: Rethinking Poststructuralism:  Towards a Critical Theory of Culture

Co-Editors:
Sharon B. Oster, Department of English, UCLA
Steven Pfaff, Department of Sociology, NYU
Matthew Titolo, Department of English, UCLA

Description:
        With the growing institutionalization of poststructuralist methods
in a broad range of academic disciplines, the time has come to take stock
of the contribution of poststructuralism to cultural analysis in the late
twentieth century. In the present volume we will construe
"poststructuralism" in broad terms, primarily as a set of orientations and
assumptions that include: "an incredulity towards metanarratives" such as
"reason," "democracy," and "truth" and a simultaneous turn towards the
local and the non-rational as topics of scholarly concern; a focus on the
semiotic construction of social and cultural phenomena; a deep suspicion
that the Kantian and Hegelian traditions of social and political thought
have produced inherently dominative, and even imperialist, intellectual
projects.  Since the 1980s, these questions have been established as
central in literary studies, anthropology, and, more recently, history and
sociology, often under the rubric of a "postmodern" methodology.  In the
past few years, however, scholars across the humanities and social sciences
have begun to express serious reservations with poststructuralist methods
and assumptions, for reasons ranging from broad objections to the political
and ethical implications of poststructuralist thought to the
epistemological limits of the approach in specific fields such as history,
sociology and literary studies.  Since the influence of poststructuralist
theory has indeed been interdisciplinary, we are convinced of the need for
a cross-disciplinary discussion of the potentials and limits of
poststructural analysis-one that encourages scholars to interrogate
theoretical claims beyond the limits of their own fields. This is
especially important in an era in which the social sciences have embarked
on an historical and cultural turn while the humanities have eagerly
embraced the new historicism.
        This volume will provide some conceptual tools and arguments for
constructing a truly reflexive critical theory of culture, a new set of
theoretical priorities that we believe can re-open the debate on
Enlightenment rationality while still building on valuable
poststructuralist critiques of "totalizing" theories (such as Marxism).  We
are thus soliciting papers in response to the following questions:  Why has
poststructuralism become the common currency for cultural analysis across
the disciplines?  Why does poststructuralism seem immune from the same sort
of criticisms to which other theoretical traditions in the study of culture
were subjected (e.g. Marxism, functionalism, New Criticism, Critical
Theory, etc.)?  Is it possible (or desirable) to uncover the hidden
normative dimensions of poststructuralist theory?  How has the term
"theory" become elided with poststructuralism?
        To begin to answer some of these questions, Rethinking
Poststructuralism  will also include papers on the critical and historical
genealogies of contemporary theory. These papers will excavate and examine
the common roots of the modern humanities and social sciences, asking
whether it is possible to reconstitute a theory of modern society and
culture on the legacy of poststructuralist analysis. Can the
anti-foundational core of poststructuralism ironically lay the foundation
for a new, authentically critical theory (as Peter Dews, among others, has
suggested)?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of the linguistic or
narrative turn in the humanities and social sciences which finds its
theoretical justification in poststructuralism?  Conversely, what are the
advantages and disadvantages for an importation of sociological and
anthropological methods and/or assumptions for literary and cultural
studies?
        Poststructuralist approaches have made scholars more aware of the
issues of racial, sexual and cultural difference, but what are the limits
of these decentering strategies in achieving concrete gains in equality and
recognition?  Is contemporary feminism, grounded in poststructuralist
thought, the most effective alternative to the more liberal humanist
tradition?  Has poststructuralist theory provided us with adequate
conceptual tools to understand our way past the "whirlpools and snags" of
social and cultural inequality that persist in modern societies?  Finally,
what are the implications of poststructuralist claims for humanities fields
confronting new institutional and disciplinary uncertainties?  What does
the radically decentering logic of poststructuralism mean for intellectual
credibility and academic expertise at a time when the broader value of the
humanities is in question?

The due date for proposals (500 words) is 15 May.  Completed papers must be
submitted by 1 December 1998.

Please send one hard copy of your proposal by 15 May to the following address:

Matthew Titolo
University of California, Los Angeles
Department of English
Box 951530
Los Angeles, California 90095-1530

or, e-mail the proposal to
titolo-AT-ucla.edu

=A91998, Los Angeles, CA


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sharon B. Oster
UCLA Department of English
sharono-AT-ucla.edu




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005