On the most basic level, this seminar aims to introduce students to a range of theorists whose ideas have left their mark on the study of literature, rhetoric, the visual arts, and a host of other disciplines. Because of this introductory quality of the course, I do not presuppose any prior knowledge of any of the theories we cover, helpful though such knowledge may be. Nevertheless, whatever our respective levels of exposure to theory, the material we will be working through this semester will be challenging for all of us (professor included); indeed, the very difficulty (whether factual or merely perceived) of theoretical writings will be one of the issues we will have to address throughout the semester.
But the titular notion of "toolbox" is meant to evoke a 2nd , perhaps even more important, aim than allowing students to acquire a survey-like, working knowledge in the theoretical arts. For while theory is often conceived almost exclusively as a mere supplement to the "real" work of reading, viewing, researching, that is: doing scholarship, this seminar begins with the provocation that there is no praxis (i.e., scholarship, etc.) without theory; indeed, theory itself is always already praxis, which is why it very much matters what kind of theory (of reading, viewing, language, images, the social, etc.) one mobilizes. In addition to our basic goal of simply acquiring a solid understanding of what various theories "say," then, we will pay equal, if not more, attention to what they do. Focusing our encounter with theory on its potential effects requires in turn that we closely attend to the very stakes involved in what kind of work a given theory demands of us.
Put differently, the "toolbox" approach is premised on the assumption that theory is best understood as a verb--as a series of actions involved in the building of something (new?). A good part of our job in this seminar will therefore be to think through--to theorize--what various theories are capable of doing, of creating; why some theories can do certain things that others can't; and what difference such different capacities actually make for the work you are being trained to do: to research, to analyze, to think, to write, to teach.
NOTE: This is a reading-intensive seminar. The only way for you to learn anything about the theoretical arts is by giving yourself over to them, that is, by immersing yourself in the readings. At the same time, you should know from the get-go that it is quite likely that we will not manage to cover all assigned readings in class. Although I will do my best to address as many readings as possible, I am in the end more interested in going with the flow of our in-class interactions--and if they productively zoom in on one or two texts in any given class then we will go with that, assuming that an intense discussion of these texts will nevertheless resonate with the other assigned readings. Pedagogically, I think this accomplishes two things: a) it allows you to learn with guidance in class based on what your peers and I have to say about some texts, and b) it allows you to learn independently by drawing on your own some connections to texts you are asked to read but which we won't end up discussing in class.
Most texts are available through Blackboard (see "Course Documents"). In addition to those texts, you should purchase the following books:
Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison . Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1995.
---. The History of Sexuality--Volume I: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage, 1990.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2002.
[NOTE: Do not purchase the earlier "orange" edition of this text, since that translation stinks.]
Nealon, Jeffrey & Susan Searls Giroux. The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, & Social Sciences. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
The University Bookstore should have these books, as well as the following reference work, which I ordered as an optional text:
Payne, Michael. Dictionary of Critical and Cultural Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
In addition to standard assignments--completing the readings on time and participating in class (worth 10% of the final grade)--I ask you to complete 3 writing assignments for this course. The following provides you with a description of these assignments, which you should consult before starting to work on them. If you have questions about the assignments don't hesitate to ask me, though I encourage you first to re-read this document, since there's a good chance it contains the answer to your question.
DUE DATE: December 3, 2009
Worth 30% of Final Grade
In lieu of a major research paper, I ask you to compile an annotated bibliography consisting of a minimum of 10 entries on one of the major theorists covered in this course (see list below). This assignment affords you the opportunity to venture out on your own, according to your own interests, obsessions, and curiosities.
Guidelines and Requirements for this Assignment:
• Each of your entries will provide full bibliographical information in properly used MLA citation style.
• Each entry will give a substantial prose paragraph (an abstract, if you will, of about 250 words) detailing the substance and importance of the specific work.
• The works you annotate must be a book, an essay in a book, or a journal article (critical essay); you may use the Internet to locate textual sources, but the actual sources cannot be websites. All sources should be of academic nature.
• Since there are literally thousands of sources for each of these major figures (see list below), you need to devise a way to focus your research. That is, rather than randomly selecting 10+ sources, your annotations should exhibit a focus or consistency (in theme, topic, debate, question, problem, etc.). For example: "Derrida and the question of ethics and/in literature"; "Foucault and the problem of biopolitics"; "Deleuze and the question of minor literature"; etc.
• Your sources must be so-called secondary sources rather than primary texts. For instance, if you're taking on Foucault, all of your sources should concern Foucault, but none of them should be written by Foucault.
• You need to bring a sufficient number of copies to distribute one to each member of the class, as well as two for me (one to grade and return to you, the other for me to keep).
• List of Major Figures : Your annotated bibliography should be on one of the following figures: Theodor Adorno, Louis Althusser, Gloria Anzaldúa, Alain Badiou, Roland Barthes, Walter Benjamin, Judith Butler, Gilles Deleuze, Jacque Derrida, Michel Foucault, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., G. W. F. Hegel, Fredric Jameson, Immanuel Kant, Jacques Lacan, Emmanuel Lévinas, Jean-François Lyotard, Karl Marx, Jean Luc Nancy, Antonio Negri, Friedrich Nietzsche, Edward Said, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Cornel West, Hayden White, Raymond Williams, Monique Wittig, & Slavoj Zizek
DUE DATE: December 12, 2009
Worth 30% of Final Grade
My assumption is that much of this material will be pretty new to most of you, so I want to give you an opportunity to explore any particular angle of it in some detail. To this end, I would like you to write an 8-12 page paper (2000-3000 words) in which you pursue a particular concept, thinker, or intellectual tradition that we touch on in class. This is an opportunity, then, for you to learn a bit more about something we might have covered only briefly in class. You need not think of this paper as having to articulate an argument or to intervene in the scholarly conversation about your topic (though you may do this as well). You may simply choose to write a bit of a summary or to pursue some questions you have about a specific theory. However, this paper is not simply an opportunity for you to offer idiosyncratic opinions about something ("I think post-marxism sucks for these 4 reasons"). It is nominally a "research" paper in that you are required to go read some things in order to write it ("many arguments against X seem to come from 2 opposed political positions, which are...).
Additional Guidelines and Requirements for this Assignments:
Your paper should be 'clean' on all levels (i.e., spelling, grammer, strucutre, citations).
Your paper should exhibit a structure of some kind; even though you don't have to articulate an argument in the way you would have to in a paper you write for publication, you should still think of your writing as having readers whom you don't want to confuse too much.
As for the number of sources you should engage, I want to leave this up to you and your sense of what it means to be in graduate school. Note, however, that the idea of this assignment is to give you a chance to learn on your own about something with which you may not be all that familiar.
Your focus should be on primary texts by our major figures (see list above). That is not to say that you cannot incorporate secondary materials--and thus use some of the research you do for the annotated bibliography--but the primary emphasis in your paper should be on what the major figure/s has/have to say. For example, if you are interested in Derrida's theory of language, you should go and read essays by Derrida on this issue and make that the focus of your paper, even though you may also choose to bring some secondary materials from your annotated bibliography to the table. Or, if you are interested in the theoretical questions provoked by the concept of ethics, you might want to read texts by, say, Levinas, Derrida, and Badiou and make those the focus of your paper, even though you may choose to have recourse to secondary materials.
Whatever you choose to do, make sure there's enough of you in the paper. I.e., don't produce a glorified annotated bibliography in prose. What I want to see is your own thinking at work--with the caveat that I don't expect that you will have arrived at any conclusion or "mastery" whatsoever. I'm looking for honest engagement on your part with what can often be rather difficult material.
DUE DATES: To Be Determined [For some of you the first paper will be on the readings for our 2nd meeting; for others it will be on the readings for the 3rd meeting; and for still others it'll be on the readings for our 4th meeting. The first group will then go again for week 5, the 2nd for week 6, and so on.]
Worth 30% of Final Grade (each response is worth 20% of the assignment's total point value)
Every three weeks you will have to produce a number of half-page summary responses to all assigned readings for that day; in the few cases where the reading assignment is an entire book or a couple of very long excerpts from a book, you should adjust your summary accordingly so that your summary reflects the complexity of these longer texts. You should post these responses on Blackboard. All response papers must be posted by Monday night at midnight of the week when we're scheduled to discuss the texts. I won't accept any late responses. There are no make-up opportunities for missed or late responses; failure to post on time will automatically result in a "0" for that particular post. This is not negotiable, so please plan your work schedule accordingly (i.e., it's not advisable that you plan on doing these papers merely hours before they're due).
Questions I'd like you to address in your responses:
What does the essay see itself as responding to (it may be a question, a problem, an insufficiency, an error, a prejudice, etc.), and how does it configure this "target"? The task here is to describe as precisely as possible what the essay sees as its own exigency (why it was written). For example, if the essay seems to be written against the "seeking and finding of 'truth' within the rational sphere" try to figure out what exactly it means by this phrase. Also, take note that many of these essays are not simply written "for" or "against" something but are usually trying to articulate a more complex engagement with their "target." Your task is to diagnose this target as precisely as possible.
What does the essay think that it has to offer in response? How does it see itself as intervening into the issue or problem that it has configured?
What are the key concepts that the essay relies upon (either to critique or to develop its own, different line of thinking)?
What questions do you have about the essay? (Try to be as specific as possible, citing particular passages; in other words, don't just say "I don't know what this means.")
What problems do you see with the essay's treatment of its topic (what are its limitations, blindnesses, mistakes, etc.)?
How might the essay itself respond to any objections you raise in 5?
Date |
Topic |
Readings Note: You should complete all readings ahead of time and be sure to have access to them in class. |
Writing Assignments |
8/27 |
What is Theory? [237] |
1. Nealon & Searls, Theory Toolbox [205] 2. Negri, "It's a Powerful Life: A Conversation on Contemporary Philosophy" [33] |
|
9/3 |
Author-ity [69] |
1. Wimsatt & Beardsley, "Intentional Fallacy" [7] 2. Benjamin, "Author as Producer" [19] 3. Barthes, "Death of the Author" [4] 4. Foucault, "What is an Author" [15] 5. Derrida, "Signature, Event, Context" [24] |
|
9/10 |
Reading [92] |
1. DeMan, Excerpt from Allegories of Reading [13] 2. Deleuze & Guattari, "Rhizome" [24] 3. Fish, "What makes an interpretation acceptable?" [19] 4. Derrida, "Structure, Sign, Play" [15] 5. Nietzsche, "On Truth and Lying" [11] 6. Deleuze, "Letter to a Harsh Critic" [10] |
|
9/17 |
Language [90] |
1. Saussure, Excerpts from Course in General Linguistics [18] 2. Austin, Excerpts from How to Do Things with Words [13] 3. Derrida, "Signature, Event, Context" [24] 4. Deleuze and Guattari, "Postulates of Linguistics" [35] |
|
9/24 |
Subjectivity [129] |
1. Kant, "What is Enlightenment?" [5] 2. Foucault, "What is Enlightenment?" [15] 3. Horkheimer and Adorno, "The Concept of Enlightenment" (in Dialectic of Enlightenment) [35] 4. Hegel, "Master/Slave" [7] 5. Lacan, "Mirror Stage"; "The Instance of the Letter"; "The Signification of the Phallus" [26] 6. Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus" [41] |
|
10/1 |
Subjectivity II [180] |
1. Foucault, From Discipline and Punish: "Body of the Condemned"; "Docile Bodies"; "Panopticism"; [180] |
|
10/8 |
Culture [114] |
1. Arnold, from "Culture and Anarchy" [8] 2. Grossberg, "The Victory of Culture" [27] 3. Horkheimer and Adorno, "The Culture Industry," in Dialectic of Enlightenment [42] 4. Morris, "Things to Do with Shopping Centers" [14] 5. R. Williams, "Marxism and Culture" [23] |
|
10/15 |
No Class Meeting |
No Class Meeting |
No Class Meeting |
10/22 |
Ideology [106]
|
1. Eagleton, From Ideology: An Introduction [35] 2. Marx, Excerpts from "Thesis on Feuerbach" [36] 3. Zizek, "How did Marx invent the Symptom" [35] |
|
10/29 |
History [131]
|
1. Benjamin, "Theses on the Philosophy of History" [12] 2. Nietzsche, "On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life" [66] 3. Foucault, "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" [26] 4. White, "The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality" [27] |
|
11/5 |
Power [155] |
1. Foucault, History of Sexuality Vol. I [155] |
|
11/12 |
Postmodernism [98] |
1. Lyotard, "What is Postmodernism?" [12] 2. Jameson, "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" [54] and "Theories of the Postmodern" [16] 3. Zizek, "The Obscene Object of Postmodernity" [16] |
|
11/19 |
Difference I: Identities [91]
|
1. Wittig, "One is not born a woman" [8] 2. Butler, "Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire" [41] 3.Butler, Introduction from Bodies that Matter [22] 4. Sedgwick, "Introduction:" Axiomatics" [8] 5. Anzaldua, "Towards a new consciousness" [12] |
|
11/24, 6-9pm |
Difference II: Community and Authenticity [136] |
1. West, "The New Cultural Politics of Difference" [17] 2. Nealon, "Becoming Black" [26] 3. Joyce-Gates-Baker Debate from African-American Literary Theory [41] 4. Nancy, Excerpt from The Inoperative Community [52] |
Make-Up Date |
11/26 |
Thanksgiving Break |
Thanksgiving Break |
Thanksgiving Break |
12/3 |
Difference III: The Other [169] |
1. Said, From Orientalism [22] 2. Spivak, "Can the Subaltern Speak?" [43] 3. Levinas, "Ethics and the Face" [26] 4. Badiou, From Ethics [12] 5. Hardt & Negri, Part One of Empire [66] |
Annotated Bibliography Due |
12/10 |
Wrapping Things Up [114] |
1. Nealon, Chapter 4&5 of Foucault Beyond Foucault [47] 2. Muckelbauer, Part One of Future of Invention [46] 3. Abel, "Intensifying Affect" [21] |
|
12/12 |
Final Paper Due |
Final Paper Due |
Final Paper Due |
OFFICE HOURS are W, 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. & R 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. My office is in 215 Andrews.
DUE DATES for papers are non-negotiable. I do not give incompletes, as I think they are in 99.9% of the cases disastrous for everyone involved--and you should not operate under the assumption that you are miraculously among the 0.01% for whom this does not hold true.
ABSENCES: I fully expect that you attend all classes and are on time. Missing one class may lower your grade by a full grade; missing more than one class period will automatically result in an F for the course. I will circulate sign-in attendance sheets at the beginning of each class. It's your responsibility to make sure you sign in; if you don't do this I will have to mark you down as absent.
The university's policy on academic honesty is stated in the Student Code of Conduct . The policy prohibits plagiarism, cheating on examinations, unauthorized collaboration, falsification, and multiple submissions. Violation of the policy will result in failing the class, in addition to disciplinary sanctions.
Students with disabilities are encouraged to contact the instructor for a confidential discussion of their individual needs for academic accommodation. It is the policy of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to provide flexible and individualized accommodation to students with documented disabilities that may affect their ability to fully participate in course activities or to meet course requirements. To receive accommodation services, students must be registered with the Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) office, 132 Canfield Administration, 472-3787 voice or TTY.
While there is no question in my mind that this will be a challenging class for all of us, I sincerely hope that it will nevertheless be fun. I take great joy out of grappling with this kind of material, even though such grappling often comes with frustrations (because one doesn't "get" it, etc.). I see it as my job to help you as best as I can getting your heads around the various theories we cover in this course. You should consider it your job to give me the chance to do so, not merely in class but also during office meetings. To this end I encourage you to take advantage of my office hours and hope I see all of you with regularity in my office. Needless to say, should at any time during the semester you have any problem with anything going on in this course (including me & my actions) you should talk to me about it rather than silently swallow it (and thus build up unproductive internal resentment).