《达洛维夫人在约翰内斯堡:重新定义伍尔夫小说中的文学性

IF 0.1 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
S. Kostelac
{"title":"《达洛维夫人在约翰内斯堡:重新定义伍尔夫小说中的文学性","authors":"S. Kostelac","doi":"10.4314/EIA.V47I1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article describes my experience teaching Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway as part of a third-year English Literature course during the #FeesMustFall protests in South Africa and the calls for curriculum transformation across the academy that ensued. In particular, it discusses students’ heightened awareness of “the social function of difficulty” (Diepeveen 30) and the critical doubt to which activist readings of Woolf’s aesthetic were subsequently subjected. It then explains how the introduction of recent neuro-cognitive approaches to Woolf’s writing provided a surprisingly enabling approach to the novel in this context by illuminating both the intuitive and “transforming” (Miall and Kuiken 125) version of literariness that Mrs Dalloway explicitly promotes, as well as the specialized and arguably elitist one that Woolf’s difficult and “multiply embedded” (Zunshine 279) aesthetic implicitly inscribes. My conclusion is a largely speculative one: I propose that the cognitive approach had some efficacy in this context because it helped students translate their intuitive and affective responses to Woolf’s difficulty into analytical terms and, moreover, legitimized the feelings of alienation that her work often engenders.","PeriodicalId":41428,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH IN AFRICA","volume":"47 1","pages":"7-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mrs Dalloway in Johannesburg: Reconceptualizing Literariness in Woolf’s Novel after #FeesMustFall1\",\"authors\":\"S. Kostelac\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/EIA.V47I1.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article describes my experience teaching Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway as part of a third-year English Literature course during the #FeesMustFall protests in South Africa and the calls for curriculum transformation across the academy that ensued. In particular, it discusses students’ heightened awareness of “the social function of difficulty” (Diepeveen 30) and the critical doubt to which activist readings of Woolf’s aesthetic were subsequently subjected. It then explains how the introduction of recent neuro-cognitive approaches to Woolf’s writing provided a surprisingly enabling approach to the novel in this context by illuminating both the intuitive and “transforming” (Miall and Kuiken 125) version of literariness that Mrs Dalloway explicitly promotes, as well as the specialized and arguably elitist one that Woolf’s difficult and “multiply embedded” (Zunshine 279) aesthetic implicitly inscribes. My conclusion is a largely speculative one: I propose that the cognitive approach had some efficacy in this context because it helped students translate their intuitive and affective responses to Woolf’s difficulty into analytical terms and, moreover, legitimized the feelings of alienation that her work often engenders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ENGLISH IN AFRICA\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"7-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ENGLISH IN AFRICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/EIA.V47I1.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ENGLISH IN AFRICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/EIA.V47I1.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章描述了我在南非#学费必须下降#抗议活动期间教授弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的《达洛维夫人》(Mrs Dalloway)的经历,这是我三年级英语文学课程的一部分,随后整个学院都呼吁进行课程改革。特别是,它讨论了学生对“困难的社会功能”(Diepeveen 30)的高度认识,以及伍尔夫美学的激进主义阅读随后受到的批判性怀疑。然后,它解释了最近对伍尔夫写作的神经认知方法的引入如何在这种背景下为小说提供了一种令人惊讶的便利方法,通过阐明达洛维夫人明确提倡的直观和“转化”(Miall和Kuiken, 125)的文学性版本,以及伍尔夫的困难和“多重嵌入”(Zunshine, 279)美学隐含的专业化和可论证的精英主义版本。我的结论很大程度上是一个推测性的结论:我认为认知方法在这种情况下有一定的功效,因为它帮助学生将他们对伍尔夫的困难的直觉和情感反应转化为分析性的术语,而且,使她的作品经常产生的异化感合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mrs Dalloway in Johannesburg: Reconceptualizing Literariness in Woolf’s Novel after #FeesMustFall1
This article describes my experience teaching Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway as part of a third-year English Literature course during the #FeesMustFall protests in South Africa and the calls for curriculum transformation across the academy that ensued. In particular, it discusses students’ heightened awareness of “the social function of difficulty” (Diepeveen 30) and the critical doubt to which activist readings of Woolf’s aesthetic were subsequently subjected. It then explains how the introduction of recent neuro-cognitive approaches to Woolf’s writing provided a surprisingly enabling approach to the novel in this context by illuminating both the intuitive and “transforming” (Miall and Kuiken 125) version of literariness that Mrs Dalloway explicitly promotes, as well as the specialized and arguably elitist one that Woolf’s difficult and “multiply embedded” (Zunshine 279) aesthetic implicitly inscribes. My conclusion is a largely speculative one: I propose that the cognitive approach had some efficacy in this context because it helped students translate their intuitive and affective responses to Woolf’s difficulty into analytical terms and, moreover, legitimized the feelings of alienation that her work often engenders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ENGLISH IN AFRICA
ENGLISH IN AFRICA LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
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