A Reply to My Critics

J. Kramnick, Colin Jager, J. Landy, M. McAdam, Robert Matthews, Natalie Philips, Deena Skolnick-Weisberg, Ellen Spolsky, Alan Thomas, J. Guillory
{"title":"A Reply to My Critics","authors":"J. Kramnick, Colin Jager, J. Landy, M. McAdam, Robert Matthews, Natalie Philips, Deena Skolnick-Weisberg, Ellen Spolsky, Alan Thomas, J. Guillory","doi":"10.1163/9789004457362_018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The responses to my essay on literary Darwinism present a welcome opportunity to engage its topic on broader terms. The essay focused on an academically marginal but publicly significant movement in literary studies, one that hopes to ground the study of literature on evolutionary psychology and so, on its view, to put our rickety discipline on the steady foundation of science. My argument against this movement challenged both its account of the science and its treatment of texts. And it did so with an end in view. Literary Darwinism is worth taking seriously for the same reason that it has gathered so much attention in the popular press. It asks us to think hard about our work and to consider any relation we might have to the social and natural sciences. How can we defend the aims and methods of humanities? How might we integrate research from other disciplines into the study of literary artifacts and culture? How finally might we expand our sense of humanistic research for the twenty-first century? These are all important questions to consider, and they extend beyond the local concerns of my initial argument. So while I take some time here to","PeriodicalId":424674,"journal":{"name":"The Social Philosophy of Agnes Heller","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Social Philosophy of Agnes Heller","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004457362_018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The responses to my essay on literary Darwinism present a welcome opportunity to engage its topic on broader terms. The essay focused on an academically marginal but publicly significant movement in literary studies, one that hopes to ground the study of literature on evolutionary psychology and so, on its view, to put our rickety discipline on the steady foundation of science. My argument against this movement challenged both its account of the science and its treatment of texts. And it did so with an end in view. Literary Darwinism is worth taking seriously for the same reason that it has gathered so much attention in the popular press. It asks us to think hard about our work and to consider any relation we might have to the social and natural sciences. How can we defend the aims and methods of humanities? How might we integrate research from other disciplines into the study of literary artifacts and culture? How finally might we expand our sense of humanistic research for the twenty-first century? These are all important questions to consider, and they extend beyond the local concerns of my initial argument. So while I take some time here to
对批评我的人的回复
对我那篇关于文学达尔文主义的文章的回应提供了一个很好的机会,可以从更广泛的角度来探讨这个话题。这篇文章关注的是文学研究中一个学术边缘但在公众中意义重大的运动,它希望将文学研究建立在进化心理学的基础上,因此,在它看来,把我们这个摇摇欲坠的学科建立在科学的稳定基础上。我反对这一运动的观点既挑战了它对科学的解释,也挑战了它对文本的处理。它这样做是有目的的。文学达尔文主义值得认真对待,原因与它在大众媒体上引起如此多的关注是一样的。它要求我们认真思考我们的工作,并考虑我们可能与社会科学和自然科学之间的任何关系。我们如何捍卫人文学科的目标和方法?我们如何将其他学科的研究整合到文学作品和文化的研究中?我们最终如何在21世纪扩展我们的人文研究意识?这些都是需要考虑的重要问题,它们超出了我最初的论点所关注的局部问题。所以趁我在这花点时间
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信