Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:53:21.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Situating the Method Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2021

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Theories and Methodologies
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Amanda Anderson

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Anderson, Amanda. Psyche and Ethos: Moral Life after Psychology. Oxford UP, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Amanda. The Way We Argue Now: A Study in the Cultures of Theory. Princeton UP, 2006.Google Scholar
Anderson, Amanda. “The Way We Talk about the Way We Teach Now.” Profession, 2009, pp. 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlant, Lauren. Cruel Optimism. Duke UP, 2011.Google Scholar
Best, Stephen, and Marcus, Sharon. “Surface Reading: An Introduction.” The Way We Read Now, special issues of Representations, edited by Best and Marcus, vol. 108, no. 1, Fall 2009, pp. 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clune, Michael. “The Humanities' Fear of Judgment.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 Aug. 2019, www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190826-CluneJudgement.Google Scholar
Collins, Randall. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard UP, 1998.Google Scholar
Dabashi, Pardis. “The Pressure to Intervene: A Case for the Modest (Young) Critic.” Post-critique and the Profession. MLA Annual Convention, 4 Jan. 2019, Hyatt Regency, Chicago.Google Scholar
Douthat, Ross. “The Academic Apocalypse.” The New York Times, 11 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/11/opinion/sunday/academics-humanities-literature-canon.html.Google Scholar
Endgame: Can Literary Studies Survive? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020, connect.chronicle.com/rs/931-EKA-218/images/ChronicleReview_Endgame.pdf.Google Scholar
Felski, Rita. The Limits of Critique. U of Chicago P, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, Rita. “Response.” PMLA. vol. 132, no. 2, Mar. 2017, pp. 384–91.Google Scholar
Guillory, John. “The Sokal Affair and the History of Criticism.” Critical Inquiry. vol. 28, 2002, pp. 470508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramnick, Jonathan, and Nersessian, Anahid. “Form and Explanation.” Critical Inquiry. vol. 43, 2017, pp. 650–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Caroline. Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network. Princeton UP, 2015.Google Scholar
Love, Heather. “Close but Not Deep: Literary Ethics and the Descriptive Turn.” New Literary History. vol. 41, no. 2, 2010, pp. 371–91.Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. Verso, 2007.Google Scholar
Newfield, Christopher. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them. Johns Hopkins UP, 2018.Google Scholar
Robbins, Bruce. “Not So Well Attached.” PMLA. vol. 132, no. 2, Mar. 2017, pp. 371–76.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. U of California P, 1990.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; or, You're So Paranoid You Probably Think This Introduction Is about You.” Novel Gazing: Queer Readings in Fiction, edited by Sedgwick, , Duke UP, 1997, pp. 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirinelli, Jean-François. “The Concept of an Intellectual Generation.” Intellectuals in Twentieth-Century France: Mandarins and Samurais, edited by Jennings, Jeremy, St. Martin's Press, 1993, pp. 8293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Jeffrey J.The New Modesty in Literary Criticism.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 Jan. 2015, www.chronicle.com/article/The-New-Modesty-in-Literary/150993.Google Scholar