Subjects, idiolects and methods in literary studies

elective courses

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 make 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?

Establishing oneself as a research subject means, among other things, 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. It means remaining faithful to the strategy, to the method, in order to be able, at the right moment, to make an unexpected deviation from the path marked out by the signs of authority. To make an escape.

The principle of self-conscious work (including research, scientific work) is always to shape things (including, for example, the object of research). How, then, did 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) produce and shape their objects of research? On the basis of which 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), constitute themselves as research subjects?

The gap between knowledge and method makes it possible to ask the above questions and to subject 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.

Knowledge – a graduate knows and understands (P8S_WG; P8S_WK):

- world production, including theoretical foundations and general and selected specific issues – specific to literary studies

- the main trends in contemporary literary studies

- the methodology of scientific research in literary studies

- the fundamental dilemmas of contemporary civilisation from the perspective of literary studies

- the principles of creating and developing various forms of knowledge transfer and commercialisation of research results

Skills – a graduate is able to (P8S_UW; P8S_UK; P8S_UU):

- creatively identify, formulate and solve complex problems or tasks of a research nature using knowledge from different disciplines in the humanities (including literary studies), and in particular define the aim and subject of scientific research in the humanities (including literary studies), develop and creatively apply research methods, techniques and tools appropriately; formulate a research hypothesis and draw conclusions on the basis of the results of scientific research

- critically analyse and evaluate the results of scientific research, expert activities and other works of a creative nature and their contribution to the development of knowledge

- transfer the results of scientific activity in the humanities to the economic and social spheres

- communicate on specialist subjects to the extent necessary for active participation in the international scholarly community in the humanities

- disseminate the results of their scholarly activity, including in popular forms

- to participate in academic discourse in the humanities

- initiate debate

- plan and act autonomously for their own development and to inspire and organise the development of others.

Social competences – a graduate is ready to (P8S_KK; P8S_KO; P8S_KR):

- evaluate independently and critically the achievements of literary studies

- critically evaluate one's own contribution to the development of a given scientific discipline (including literary studies) and discuss, formulate substantive arguments, and express one's own opinions with respect for others; show an attitude of openness to the kind of reflection typical of the various humanities, with respect for different points of view

- recognise the primacy of knowledge in the solution of research, cognitive and practical problems within the humanities (including literary studies), while respecting the standards of academic work and debate

- take initiatives and organise activities for the benefit of the social environment

- maintain and develop the ethos of the research community, including conducting research in an independent manner, taking into account existing limitations due to, for example, financial or infrastructural reasons, respecting the principles of public ownership of research results, taking into account the rules on the protection of intellectual property, and being aware of the need to respect professional ethics.

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.