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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005