Method as Practice
Pages 5 - 34
This publication is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0.
Given the diversity of objects and objectives of research in the field and recent debates about method, there should be a more robust conversation about the concrete practices of analysis and interpretation that are pursued in American studies in Germany and beyond. This forum brings together ten scholars who tackle the question of what exactly it is that we do when we engage in reading, analysis, and interpretation. On the one hand, the participants of this forum question core assumptions behind the methods of literary inquiry as it is often taught. The result is a renewed awareness of their own positionality as academic participants in larger fields of cultural interaction. On the other hand, each statement proposes new ways to conceptualize interpretation, affirming the role the situatedness of researchers plays in the production of scholarship. Several contributions strongly reaffirm or challenge past methods, while others place the methodological question in the context of neoliberal structures in higher education. Still others propose ways to move forward that combine existing approaches and add new means of engagement with cultural texts. In different registers, these statements help chart the affordances of critical inquiry and depart from an understanding of interpretation as objective, repeatable, and disembodied.
1 Adorno, Theodor W. Minima Moralia: Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1951. Print.
2 “Against Method.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 24 Dec. 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method.
3 Ahmed, Sara. Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Duke UP, 2017. Print.
4 Arghavan, Mahmoud, Nicole Hirschfelder, and Katharina Motyl. “Who Can Speak and Who Is Heard/Hurt: Facing Problems of Race, Racism, and Ethnic Diversity in the Humanities in Germany: A Survey of the Issues at Stake.” Who Can Speak and Who Is Heard/Hurt?—Facing Problems of Race, Racism, and Ethnic Diversity in the Humanities in Germany. Ed. Mahmoud Arghavan et al. Bielefeld: transcript, 2019. 9-44. Print.
5 Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Paris: Seuil, 1957. Print.
6 Benesch, Klaus. Mythos Lesen: Buchkultur und Geisteswissenschaften im Informationszeitalter. Bielefeld: transcript, 2021. Print.
7 Best, Stephen, and Sharon Marcus. “Surface Reading: An Introduction.” Representations 108.1 (2009): 1-21. Print.
8 Bode, Katherine. “The Equivalence of ‘Close’ and ‘Distant’ Reading; or, Toward a New Object for Data-Rich Literary History.” Modern Language Quarterly 78 (2017): 77-106. Print.
9 Cardon, Dominique. À quoi rêvent les algorithmes: Nos vies à l’heure des big data. Paris: Seuil, 2015. Print.
10 Carpo, Mario. The Second Digital Turn: Design beyond Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017. Print.
11 Collier, Patrick. Teaching Literature in the Real World. London: Bloomsbury, 2021. Print.
12 “Combahee River Collective Statement.” 1977. How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective. Ed. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. Chicago, IL: Haymarket, 2017. 15-27. Print.
13 Deckard, Sharae, and Stephen Shapiro. “World-Culture and the Neoliberal World-System.” World Literature, Neoliberalism, and the Culture of Discontent. Ed. Sharae Deckard and Stephen Shapiro. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. 1-48. Print.
14 Deloria, Philip Joseph, and Alexander I. Olson. American Studies: A User’s Guide. Berkeley: U of California P, 2017. Print.
15 Dever, Maryanne. Paper, Materiality and the Archived Page. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. Print.
16 “Discipline, n.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford UP, Dec. 2021. Web. 21 Dec. 2021. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/53744.
17 Dunst, Alexander. “Digital American Studies: An Introduction and Rationale.” Amerikastudien / American Studies: A Quarterly 61.3 (2017): 381-95. Print.
18 English, James F. The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2005. Print.
19 Farge, Arlette. The Allure of the Archives. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2013. Print.
20 Felski, Rita. Hooked: Art and Attachment. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2020. Print.
21 ---. Introduction. New Literary History 45.2 (2014): v-xi. Print.
22 ---. The Limits of Critique. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2015. Print.
23 Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso, 1975. Print.
24 Freeman, Elizabeth. Beside You in Time: Sense Methods & Queer Sociabilities in the American 19th Century. Durham: Duke UP, 2019. Print.
25 Frow, John. “On Midlevel Concepts.” New Literary History 41.2 (2010): 237-52. Print.
26 Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary Criticism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988. Print.
27 Guillory, John. “Monuments and Documents: Panofsky on the Object of Study in the Humanities.” History of Humanities 1.1 (2016): 9-30. Print.
28 Gutkin, Len. “The Review: We’re Off to the Method Wars.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 Feb. 2021, Web. 20 Dec. 2021. https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/chronicle-review/2021-02-22.
29 Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies.” Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. Ed. David Morley and Kuan-Hsing Chen. London: Routledge, 1996. 261-74. Print.
30 Hartman, Saidiya. Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments: Intimate Histories of Social Upheaval. New York: Norton, 2019. Print.
31 Hewson, Mark. “The Debate with Method in the History of Literary Studies.” Comparative Literary Studies 55.1 (2018): 23-46. Print.
32 hooks, bell. Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.
33 Karlin, Daniel, ed. Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett: The Courtship Correspondence, 1845-1846. A Selection. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989. Print.
34 Kennedy, Liam, and Stephen Shapiro. Introduction. Neoliberalism and Contemporary American Literature. Ed. Liam Kennedy and Stephen Shapiro. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College P, 2019. 1-21. Print.
35 Kramnick, Jonathan. “Criticism and Truth.” Critical Inquiry 47.2 (2021): 218-40. Print.
36 Kurnick, David. “A Few Lies: Queer Theory and Our Method Melodramas.” ELH 87.2 (2020): 349-74. Print.
37 Lanzendörfer, Tim, and Mathias Nilges. “Literary Studies after Postcritique: An Introduction.” Amerikastudien / American Studies: A Quarterly 64.4 (2019): 491-513. Web. https://amst.winter-verlag.de/article/AMST/2019/4/4.
38 Léger-St-Jean, Marie, and Katie McGettigan. “Exploring Transatlantic Print Culture through Digital Databases.” Amerikastudien / American Studies 63.2 (2018): 159-81. Print.
39 Liming, Sheila. “Fighting Words.” Los Angeles Review of Books, 14 Dec. 2020. Web. 28 Oct. 2021. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/fighting-words/.
40 Lyons, Martyn. Reading Culture and Writing Practices in Nineteenth-Century France. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2008. Print.
41 Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. “The German Ideology.” Marx-Engels Collected Works. Vol. 5: 1845-1847. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975. 19-538. Print.
42 Moretti, Franco. “Conjectures on World Literature.” New Left Review 1 (2000): 54-68. Print.
43 ---. “The Roads to Rome.” New Left Review 124 (2020): 125-36. Print.
44 Redmond, Dennis, trans. Minima Moralia. By Theodor W. Adorno. Marxists Internet Archive, 2005. Web. 21. Dec. 2021. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1951/mm/index.htm.
45 Rose, Tricia. Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP, 1994. Print.
46 SAA. Society of American Archivists. “Finding Aid.” Dictionary of Archives Terminology, n. d. Web. 15 Dec. 2021. https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/finding-aid.html.
47 Sculley, D., and Bradly M. Pasanek. “Meaning and Mining: The Impact of Implicit Assumptions in Data Mining for the Humanities.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23 (2008): 409-24. Print.
48 Shapiro, Stephen. “Foucault, Neoliberalism, Algorithmic Governmentality, and the Loss of Liberal Culture.” Neoliberalism and Contemporary American Literature. Ed. Liam Kennedy and Stephen Shapiro. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College P, 2019. 43-72. Print.
49 Sharpe, Christina. In the Wake: On Blackness and Being. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2016. Print.
50 Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. “What Was ‘Close Reading’?: A Century of Method in Literary Studies.” The Minnesota Review 87 (2016): 57-75. Print.
51 Smith, Martha Nell. “The Human Touch Software of the Highest Order: Revisiting Editing as Interpretation.” Textual Cultures 2.1 (2007): 1-15. Print.
52 Spacks, Patricia Meyer. Gossip. New York: Knopf, 1985. Print.
53 Stoler, Ann Laura. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2009. Print.
54 Tompkins, Kyla Wazana. “The Shush.” PMLA 136.3 (2021): 417-23. Print.
55 Wahl, Elizabeth Susan. Invisible Relations: Representations of Female Intimacy in the Age of Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1999. Print.
56 Wegner, Phillip E. Invoking Hope: Theory and Utopia in Dark Times. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2020. Print.
57 West-Pavlov, Russell. “Thinking the Contemporary: Beyond Distinctiveness in the Literary Humanities.” Futures of Literary Criticism. Spec. issue of Textual Practice. Ed. Mathias Nilges and Tim Lanzendörfer (forthcoming). Print.
58 Wilderson III, Frank B. Afropessimism. New York: Liveright, 2020. Print.
59 Wimsatt, William K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. “The Affective Fallacy.” Sewanee Review 57.1 (1949): 31-55. Print.
60 ---. “The Intentional Fallacy.” Sewanee Review 54.3 (1946): 468-88. Print.
61 Witmore, Mike. “Response to Mark Goble and Jeff Dolven: The Maker Returns.” After Critique? Spec. issue of English Language Notes 51.2 (2013): 139-42. Print.