Subjects, idiolects and methods in literary studies

I invite you to a course on the methodology of literary studies in which we will persistently situate ourselves in the gap between the construction of knowledge, the construction of research methods and the entanglement in uncertainty of signposts. One must constantly ask oneself: what strategies should be used in the processes of constituting myself as a research subject and producing the object of my research? And also: how do I develop my own idiolect in the face of the institutional demands of writing a doctoral dissertation? ...in order to be ready at the crucial moment to leave my own mark on the written work. ...to make an unexpected deviation, at the right moment, from the path marked out by the signs of authority. ...to effect an escape.

When Descartes was discoursing on the method, he said: “I was educated in classical studies from my earliest years, and because I was given to believe that through them one could acquire clear and sure knowledge of everything that one needed in life, I was extremely eager to acquire them. But as soon as I had finished my course of study, at which time it is usual to be admitted to the ranks of the well educated, I completely changed my opinion, for I found myself bogged down in so many doubts and errors, that it seemed to me that having set out to become learned, I had derived no benefit from my studies, other than that of progressively revealing to myself how ignorant I was. And yet I was a pupil of one of the most famous schools in Europe” [transl. I. Maclean].

Derrida on the other hand, when responding to the questions that were referred to his well known paper presented in Baltimore in 1966, said: “I was wondering myself if I know where I am going. […] I am trying, precisely, to put myself at a point so that I do not know any longer where I am going. […] I don’t see why I should renounce or why anyone should renounce the radicality of a critical work under the pretext that it risks the sterilization of science, humanity, progress, the origin of meaning, etc. I believe that the risk of sterility and of sterilization has always been the price of lucidity”.

I invite you to a course on the methodology of literary studies in which we will persistently situate ourselves in the gap between the construction of literary knowledge, the construction of research methods, and the entanglement in uncertainty of signposts. Approaching the grammars of the various methods, currents and schools of literary studies with suspicion, with caution towards the embedding of critical languages in clarity, one must constantly ask oneself: on the basis of which strategies should the processes of constituting myself as a research subject and producing the object of my research proceed? Whose style of thinking and writing seduces me and why, and how do I develop my own idiolect in the face of the institutional demands of writing a doctoral dissertation?

The process of establishing oneself as a research subject involves acquiring the ability to approach a problem, to trace implications, to follow traces (of whom: the author, the writer, the researcher, the text, other traces?) in order to be ready, at the decisive moment, to countersign, to leave one's own imprints scattered throughout the written work. This entails maintaining fidelity to the strategy and method employed, in order to be able, at the opportune moment, to deviate from the path delineated by the signs of authority. To effect an escape.

The principle of self-conscious work, including research and scientific work, is always to shape things, including, for example, the object of research. It is therefore necessary to consider how those with names ranging from A (Appadurai), B (Bennett, Butler), C (Cixous), D (Deleuze), through L (Lacan) and M (Massumi) to S (Spivak) or W (White) produced and shaped their objects of research? What strategies and techniques did those with names beginning with A (Auerbach), B (Barthes, Braidotti), through D (Derrida), F (Foucault), G (Greenblatt) and L (Lacoue-Labarthe, Latour), up to at least M (de Man) and S (Sartre, Showalter) employ to constitute themselves as research subjects?

The gap between knowledge and method enables the posing of the aforementioned inquiries and the subjection of the horizons opened up by them to methodical doubt – without signposts, not always knowing exactly where we are heading.

Selected readings by Arjun Appadurai, Erich Auerbach, Jane Bennett, Roland Barthes, Judith Butler, Rosi Braidotti, Hélène Cixous, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Stephen Greenblatt, Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Bruno Latour, Paul de Man, Jean-Paul Sartre, Elaine Showalter, Gayatri Ch. Spivak, Hayden White.

The readings for each class will be chosen according to the course of the meetings.

The course is not graded. Course credit is awarded to the doctoral student based on attendance, preparation for class (reading of assigned and other readings), and activity during meetings.

Two excused absences are allowed.

Revision credit – a discussion with the teacher on the readings discussed in class.

Polish language (depending on the group's preference, meetings may be held in English)