Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > “Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself”

Electronic data

  • Pearce_transfers_to_CE_-_ce

    Accepted author manuscript, 381 KB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 31/03/22

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

“Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself”: Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>31/03/2020
<mark>Journal</mark>Transfers
Issue number1
Volume10
Number of pages9
Pages (from-to)76-84
Publication StatusPublished
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

This article explores three reasons why literary scholars have been slow to engage with both the New Mobilities Paradigm and the New Mobilities Studies promoted by Transfers, namely: (1) the residual conservatism of “English studies”; (2) the sort of textual practice associated with “literary criticism” (where the text remains the primary object of study); and (3), the tension between the humanist and/or “subject-centered” nature of most literary scholarship and the posthumanist approaches of mobilities scholars based in the social sciences and other humanities subjects. However, the close reading of literary and other texts has much to contribute to mobilities studies including insight into the temporalities—both personal and social—that shape our long-term understanding of contemporary events such as the current pandemic.