Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:22:52.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Latour and Literary Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Rita Felski
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

I am interested in questions of reading and interpretation. I am also drawn to actor-network theory and the work of Bruno Latour. Can these attractions be brought into alignment? To what extent can a style of thought that describes itself as empiricist and rejects critique speak to the dominant concerns of literary studies? Can actor-network theory help us think more adequately about interpretation? Might it inspire us to become more generous readers? How do literary studies and Latourian thought engage, enlist, seduce, or speak past each other? What duels, rivalries, intrigues, appropriations, or love affairs will ensue?

Information

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 130 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 737 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2015

References

Works Cited

Bogost, Ian. Alien Phenomenology; or, What It's Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2012. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Steven. “Spelling Things Out.” New Literary History 45.2 (2014): 183–97. Print.Google Scholar
Felski, Rita. “Context Stinks!” New Literary History 42.4 (2011): 573–91. Print.Google Scholar
Felski, Rita. “Digging Down and Standing Back.” English Language Notes 51.2 (2013): 7–24. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, Rita. Uses of Literature. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frow, John. “On Mid-Level Concepts.” New Literary History 41.2 (2010): 237–52. Print.Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. Bruno Latour: Reassembling the Political. London: Pluto, 2014. Print.Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. “The Importance of Bruno Latour for Philosophy.” Cultural Studies Review 13.1 (2007): 31–49. Print.Google Scholar
Kelleter, Frank. Serial Agencies: The Wire and Its Readers. Winchester: Zero, 2013. Print.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. “Coming Out as a Philosopher.” Social Studies of Science 40.4 (2010): 599–608. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. “Factures/Fractures: From the Concept of Network to the Concept of Attachment.” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 36 (1999): 20–31. Print.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2014. Print.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Heather. “Close but Not Deep: Literary Ethics and the Descriptive Turn.” New Literary History 41.2 (2010): 371–92. Print.Google Scholar
Muecke, Stephen. “Motorcycles, Snails, Retour: Criticism without Judgement.” Cultural Studies Review 18.1 (2012): 40–58. Print.Google Scholar
Outka, Elizabeth. “Dead Men, Walking: Actors, Networks, and Actualized Metaphors in Mrs. Dalloway and Raymond.” Novel 46.2 (2013): 253–74. Print.Google Scholar
Piekut, Benjamin. “Actor-Networks in Music History: Clarifications and Critiques.” Twentieth-Century Music 11 (2014): 1–25. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, William B. “Reality and the Novel: Latour and the Uses of Fiction.” Latour and the Eighteenth Century. Ed. Christina Lupton and Sean Silver. Spec. issue of Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation 57.2 (forthcoming 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar