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

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

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: Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

“Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself” Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus: Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus. / Pearce, Lynne.
In: Transfers, Vol. 10, No. 1, 01.03.2020, p. 76-84.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Pearce, L 2020, '“Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself” Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus: Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus', Transfers, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 76-84. https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2020.100109

APA

Pearce, L. (2020). “Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself” Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus: Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus. Transfers, 10(1), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2020.100109

Vancouver

Pearce L. “Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself” Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus: Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus. Transfers. 2020 Mar 1;10(1):76-84. Epub 2020 Mar 1. doi: 10.3167/TRANS.2020.100109

Author

Pearce, Lynne. / “Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself” Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus : Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus. In: Transfers. 2020 ; Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 76-84.

Bibtex

@article{09bae7deb2a94b6a8acadba9321488a4,
title = "“Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself” Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus: Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus",
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.",
keywords = "literary Studies, literary criticism, mobilities studies, pandemic, posthumanism, temporality",
author = "Lynne Pearce",
year = "2020",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.3167/TRANS.2020.100109",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "76--84",
journal = "Transfers",
issn = "2045-4813",
publisher = "Berghahn Books Inc.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - “Text-as-Means” versus “Text-as-End-in-Itself” Some Reasons Why Literary Scholars Have Been Slow to Hop on the Mobilities Bus

T2 - Some reasons why literary scholars have been slow to jump on the mobilities bus

AU - Pearce, Lynne

PY - 2020/3/1

Y1 - 2020/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - literary Studies

KW - literary criticism

KW - mobilities studies

KW - pandemic

KW - posthumanism

KW - temporality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101624465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3167/TRANS.2020.100109

DO - 10.3167/TRANS.2020.100109

M3 - Journal article

VL - 10

SP - 76

EP - 84

JO - Transfers

JF - Transfers

SN - 2045-4813

IS - 1

ER -