FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2015019891> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2015019891 endingPage "67" @default.
• W2015019891 startingPage "53" @default.
• W2015019891 abstract "Three Scenarios for Literary Darwinism Joseph Carroll (bio) Introduction: The Once and Future Discipline Thirty years ago, the idea of creating a specifically evolutionary theory of literature would scarcely have seemed imaginable and would certainly not have seemed within the range of practical possibility. Nonetheless, over the past fifteen years, literary Darwinists have been making rapid progress in integrating literary study with the evolutionary human sciences. What is the likely future trajectory of this movement? We can probe this question by comparing three alternative scenarios: one in which literary Darwinism remains outside the mainstream of literary study; one in which literary Darwinism is incorporated as just another of many different approaches to literature; and a third in which the evolutionary human sciences transform and subsume all literary study. For the first two scenarios, we can easily enough extrapolate from past and current beliefs and practices, but we also have to factor in the continuing development of the evolutionary human sciences outside of literary study. That would have an impact on the way life would be lived within the isolated enclave of literary study. It is one thing to be a small village in a world consisting only of small villages. It is another thing to be a small village surrounded by a world empire in confident possession of the practices and beliefs through which it has achieved unification and mastery. For the third scenario, we have to envision how literary study would develop within an evolutionary perspective that encompasses all the human sciences. Scenario 1: And Never the Twain Shall Meet Three decades into the new postmodern hegemony, we are now also at least a decade into the crisis in the humanities. The subversive metaphysical and political fervor that fuelled the poststructuralist revolution has long since subsided into tired routine. The question that generated the poststructuralist revolution, What next? is being asked again, and [End Page 53] with increasing desperation. In a recent essay on the parlous state of the humanities, Louis Menand professes himself willing to consider almost any possible option, only just not one particular option: consilience, that is, integrating literary study with the evolutionary human sciences. That option, he declares, would be a bargain with the devil.1 In the first scenario—a continuation of the status quo—a large majority of literary scholars continue to share Menand's aversion to any connection with the evolutionary human sciences. The literary Darwinists stand wholly separate from the mainstream literary establishment, massively ignored, unable even to get panels accepted at the annual conferences of the Modern Language Association, assiduously though silently expunged from citation lists and from surveys of critical theory, not merely neglected but actively and aggressively shunned. In this scheme of things, the literary Darwinists write essays critical of mainstream practices but have no productive interaction with the mainstream. The first monograph in literary Darwinism appeared in 1995.2 The number of books and articles published since 2007 and now in press—a three-year span—far exceeds the number published altogether in the twelve years from 1995 through 2006. In a steady-state scenario, this exponential growth could not continue. Otherwise, within just a few years, literary Darwinism would have come to dominate literary study, violating the premise of the scenario. So, we have to assume that the rate of growth in literary Darwinism not only levels off but actually declines—and all this while poststructuralist literary study is losing heart, on the one side, and the evolutionary human sciences are making giant strides on the other. Unlikely, but so goes the scenario. Within this scenario, we need say only that the literary Darwinists would continue to do the kind of work they have been doing all along. What the Darwinists have been doing all along is using evolutionary psychology to examine the motivations of characters in novels, plays, and (less frequently) poems, concentrating chiefly on the sexual aspects of reproductive success but taking in also family dynamics, social dynamics, and survival issues such as acquiring resources and avoiding predators. 3 For instance, in his critique of The Iliad and The Odyssey Jonathan Gottschall analyzes the interplay between socioeconomic organization and reproductive psychology. In his commentary..." @default.
• W2015019891 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2015019891 creator A5025468647 @default.
• W2015019891 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W2015019891 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2015019891 title "Three Scenarios for Literary Darwinism" @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1515830097 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1521676125 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1528252250 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1541832535 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1548618843 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1556303345 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1576372720 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1578998564 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1579075985 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1579710447 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1586871703 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1604299710 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1659555038 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1823077382 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1872053182 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1911345457 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1919853275 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1939733999 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1949568 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1963830393 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1965382451 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1968060331 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W1989070118 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2001181654 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2003368622 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2008187791 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2034951993 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2050184297 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2054330188 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2071874534 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2082014692 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2083841499 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2088277595 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2094337297 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2097741907 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2128248178 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2133735566 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2161899020 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2325090742 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2335457836 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2487961302 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2618658083 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2798900470 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2887818945 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2995232383 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W3028534148 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W425059808 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W46539433 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W568577371 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W577813589 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W586738488 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W610753475 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W645697439 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W70547683 @default.
• W2015019891 cites W2476577347 @default.
• W2015019891 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.0.0144" @default.
• W2015019891 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2015019891 type Work @default.
• W2015019891 sameAs 2015019891 @default.
• W2015019891 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W2015019891 countsByYear W20150198912013 @default.
• W2015019891 countsByYear W20150198912014 @default.
• W2015019891 countsByYear W20150198912016 @default.
• W2015019891 countsByYear W20150198912017 @default.
• W2015019891 countsByYear W20150198912018 @default.
• W2015019891 countsByYear W20150198912020 @default.
• W2015019891 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2015019891 hasAuthorship W2015019891A5025468647 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C142932270 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C196919123 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C2777617010 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C2780193096 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C505900562 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C7807463 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C95124753 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConcept C96146094 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConceptScore W2015019891C111472728 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConceptScore W2015019891C124952713 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConceptScore W2015019891C12713177 @default.
• W2015019891 hasConceptScore W2015019891C138885662 @default.

• next