5th October: Affect and Analysis
Introduction and Chapter 4, The Limits of Critique, by Rita Felski (2015): Felski breaks down the dominant practice of ‘critique’ within literary and cultural studies, exploring the kinds of ideas and assumptions that underpin this practice. The easy conflation of critique with critical thinking, and the denigration of other modes of engagement as ‘uncritical’, is questioned throughout this book. One of her key points is that critique cannot be accepted as the only mode of critical engagement, and literary methods must expand to make room for other modes, such as that of ‘affect’, to account for the emotive/more amorphous reactions that we have when we engage with literature.
1. The meeting began with a discussion on Felski’s arguments probing the construction of ‘critique’ as a dominant method (particularly in literary studies). The parallels between critique and ‘detective work’ were discussed: the tendency to be highly suspicious of the text and assume a position wherein one can (and must) unearth its ‘real’ implications. It was felt that these methods can sometimes have an element of self-prophecy, where the critic ends up at the same point where they started. It was also suggested that the ways in which we practice discourse is directed towards an older idea of historical progression (wherein human society is seen as moving towards some ideal point, so everything in the past is automatically inferior, or ‘less than’ the present) which enhances the critic’s authority.
2. There was an extensive discussion about what alternative modes might exist. The work of Joe Sacco was taken up by one of the participants, Ajith: Sacco did both archival and ethnographic work in conflict zones, so what would literary study upon his text do, beyond describing trauma? Ajith created certain figures, taking from Sacco’s work, to see how identity positions interact and bring out new forms of becoming/being. Felski’s book provides a vocabulary for such work, which brings in notions of affect in critique. Eve Sedgwick’s idea of reparative reading was also mentioned. Empathy and affective work can be linked to rigour in various such practices.
3. The discussion shifted to other contexts. What are the possibilities of imagining different kinds of discourse as critique--a conversation, for example, with friends, family, lovers, of the kind we regularly participate in? The usual presumption is that such encounters are not ‘critical enough’, but there might be alternative forms of criticality which this classification hides. This classification itself is useful when thinking about ‘critique’. How does such critique in everyday life differ from critique in academia?
4. The implications of these understandings of critique/criticism on changing political, institutional, and pedagogic dynamics were brought up. It was pointed out that methods acquire a certain sanctity within disciplines, which makes it harder to question their underlying assumptions. It was suggested that a ‘horizontal’ rather than vertical notion of critique could be conceived, where critique is one of many methods, rather than the method. It was suggested that there is a stagnancy of thematic readings within literary studies in particular, but it’s unclear whether this ties in with developments across other disciplines.
5. The issues of methodology and the researcher’s position was one of the points of discussion, with different perspectives emerging on how one’s own position can be conceptualised. This discussion began in the context of certain questions that become critical when engaging in scholarly work that deals with tribal subjects: how does one determine identity; structural-local mediations; how to adequately address resistance and identity in a study. Pre-determined methodological constraints exist upon such work, for example ethnographic work, which do not allow for certain kinds of questions. Methodology with a clear decolonial intent was seen as valuable, but concerns were raised regarding the applicability of such ideas. With regard to positionality, some felt that neutrality was indeed a possible position, whereas others disagreed, saying that there was no neutral position within a research environment (since it is also a social environment). Donna Harraway’s ideas were brought up in this context--‘new objectivity’, and the idea of accepting positionality--with questions remaining on the ways in which this played out in practice. Felski’s work seems to suggest a kind of ‘strategic essentialism’ as a way to navigate some of these questions.
6. There remained some unaddressed questions/aspects where Felski’s argument is concerned, and with affective engagement in general. Felski uses the term ‘pragmatic’--what does the word mean, here (in a philosophically loaded sense, or as practical tools of navigation)? What about the subjectivity of the person doing critique--can we find ways to understand that? Also, more broadly: what is Felski’s project--she recognises the gap between the intent and outcome of critique, but what political possibilities would a focus on affect open up? What ways does it offer to approach the relationalities of oppressor/oppressed: whether through inventing forms/genres through which we can intervene differently in the political space; or changing (and exchanging) disciplinary and methodological perspectives?
7. One participant raised the question of whether this alternate ‘affective’ criticality required training, the same way the critique as a mode does, and if so, what kind of training? This training would not only include the incorporation of particular vocabularies, but also disciplinary orientation, etc--certain normatives would be established, and this implies a need for caution. Are some affects prioritised over others, in such a process? (For example, how does one respond to a student expressing that they cannot affectively engage with a given text?) Affective responses frequently need to be validated, demonstrably articulated--certain affects may be left out in this process.
8. In terms of pedagogy, then, several concerns exist. Within several contexts, say, schooling, there are existing determinate frames within which texts are taught, which students and teachers both feel bound to follow, so how would an affect-driven mode take shape there? Some members suggested that the task of the teacher could be to bring in totally unfamiliar texts and demand creative responses, but classrooms are already vested with a set of normative parameters+social context, so this would not perhaps play out straightforwardly. One question that arose was whether teaching texts should ‘disorient’ student-readers or not. While some argued that disorientation was a necessary component of being introduced to a new mode, others contended that not all disorientation was productive or positive--disorienting the reader might actually take away their sense of authority within the classroom space.
9. How do we chart the relationship between academic work, writing, and affect-based methods? Too much emphasis on writing, and articulating affective relationships, stirs anxieties of not being comprehensive and/or comprehensible. One member pointed out that frequently we are not aware of our affective intent and dispositions through which we are writing: this might be a cause for alienation.
