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

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 criti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Transfers 2020-03, Vol.10 (1), p.76-84
Main Author: Pearce, Lynne
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Humanists
Postcolonialism
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:2045-4813
2045-4821
DOI:10.3167/TRANS.2020.100109