FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2002692232> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2002692232 endingPage "17" @default.
• W2002692232 startingPage "3" @default.
• W2002692232 abstract "Preface: Fidelity to the Unruly Zahi Zalloua (bio) There is ethics—that is to say, an injunction which cannot be grounded in ontology—in so far as there is a crack in the ontological edifice of the universe: at its most elementary, ethics designates fidelity to this crack. — (Slavoj Žižek, The Plague of Fantasies 214) The late twentieth century witnessed unprecedented attention to ethics in literary studies. The notion of an “Ethical Turn” was in fact coined to attest to this burgeoning academic interest. Unfortunately this kind of designation, while useful in pointing to a perceived shift in the concerns of interpretive communities, risks homogenizing the unruly voices responsible for such a turn.1 A genealogy of the turn quickly reveals its contested origin, its fraught beginnings. Is/was the “Ethical Turn” a mere moment in the cyclical history of interpretive turns, situated between the “Linguistic Turn” and the nascent “Aesthetic Turn,” with the “Cultural Turn” eagerly waiting in the hermeneutic queue?2 While debates over the function of literary criticism surely date back to the very inception of literature, Frank Kermode detects in today’s generation of critics an unparalleled hostility to both the ethical value of criticism (which, in the past, “was extremely important; it could be taught; it was an influence for civilization and even for personal amendment” [“Literary Criticism” 194]) and the aesthetic value of literature in its own right: Under the old dispensation, one might choose between several methodologies which had in common only the assumptions that it was permissible to speak of literary quality and that one could read with a degree of attention that warranted the issuing of judgments, even of declarations, that some works demanded to be read by all who claimed the right to expound and instruct. Under the newer metacritical dispensation, there were now many interesting ways of banning such activities and substituting for them methods of description and analysis which might derive their force from linguistics, politics, anthropology, psychoanalysis, or what were claimed to be brand-new, unillusioned, and exciting ways of writing history. (Pleasure and Change, 16) It might be tempting to see the “turn to ethics” as a kind of exorcism of the post-68 mentality that gave us the slogan of “the death of the author” and the rise of symptomatic readings3: the turn to ethics would be, in this [End Page 3] respect, tantamount to a return to the so-called older dispensation. Resisting such a nostalgic and potentially reactionary move, Wayne C. Booth, in his 1988 The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction, adopts a broader and less exclusionary definition of ethics, not only taking stock of a new ethical sensibility sweeping literary studies, but also, and perhaps more importantly, reading it back into its most trenchant opponents: I’m thinking here not only of the various new overtly ethical and political challenges to “formalism”: by feminist critics asking embarrassing questions about a male-dominated literary canon and what it has done to the “consciousness” of both men and women; by black critics pursuing Paul Moses’s kind of question about racism in American classics; by neo-Marxists exploring class biases in European literary traditions; by religious critics attacking modern literature for its “nihilism” or “atheism.” I am thinking more of the way in which even those critics who work hard to purge themselves of all but the most abstract formal interests turn out to have an ethical program in mind—a belief that a given way of reading, or a given kind of genuine literature, is what will do us most good. (5) Twenty years later, Janet Wolff, in The Aesthetics of Uncertainty, approvingly quotes and reiterates Booth’s totalizing assessment and harmonizing gesture in the last pages of her book. Defining an ethics of reading as a commitment to a “kind of genuine literature” that “will do us most good,” however, seems to me at once disarming and alarming: disarming for its obviousness (who, among ethical critics, doubts that a literary ethical sensibility is beneficial?) and alarming for its vagueness (what is meant by beneficial or good?). While this volume does not flatly reject Booth and Wolff’s invitation..." @default.
• W2002692232 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2002692232 creator A5085354228 @default.
• W2002692232 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W2002692232 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2002692232 title "Preface: Fidelity to the Unruly" @default.
• W2002692232 cites W116801716 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W121509021 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1485184078 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1491858555 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1518078021 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1525331590 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1541115451 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1560705824 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1563828564 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1588449593 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1597750586 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1599084781 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W160867179 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1884641665 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W1995344367 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2000440620 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2071390708 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2091315083 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2109532669 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2141969371 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2150576713 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2168466753 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2320489418 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2795905271 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2798731500 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W2999029832 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W399794737 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W584540832 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W592358699 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W593116698 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W600281710 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W614174293 @default.
• W2002692232 cites W631488501 @default.
• W2002692232 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sub.0.0059" @default.
• W2002692232 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2002692232 type Work @default.
• W2002692232 sameAs 2002692232 @default.
• W2002692232 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2002692232 countsByYear W20026922322013 @default.
• W2002692232 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2002692232 hasAuthorship W2002692232A5085354228 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C132829578 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C142932270 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C2776804220 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C2779960602 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C107038049 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C111472728 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C119857082 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C124952713 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C132829578 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C138885662 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C142362112 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C142932270 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C144024400 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C154945302 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C17744445 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C199539241 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C2776291640 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C2776804220 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C2779960602 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C36289849 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C41008148 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C7991579 @default.
• W2002692232 hasConceptScore W2002692232C95457728 @default.
• W2002692232 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2002692232 hasLocation W20026922321 @default.
• W2002692232 hasOpenAccess W2002692232 @default.
• W2002692232 hasPrimaryLocation W20026922321 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2349823153 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2362292246 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2366017978 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2372240471 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2378433158 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2384094977 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2886264605 @default.
• W2002692232 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.

• next