Adding versus Arguing: Narratology and Taxonomy

PMLA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 135 (5) ◽  
pp. 982-988
Author(s):  
Yoon Sun Lee
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
History Of ◽  
Critical Intervention

Is literary criticism a kind of science? I want to start with this question in order to get at what might be an alternative to the terminology of the critical intervention. The type of criticism I focus on here is narratology. If theory is the ever-rebellious offspring of structuralism, then narratology could be seen as the latter's dutiful child, the inheritor of structuralism's methods and legacies. That portrayal exaggerates and simplifies, of course, but it does seem to me that narratologists have a way of arguing with each other that is rather different from the arguments of those working in other branches of theory. And it further strikes me that this difference has to do with narratology's image of itself as a type of science. To understand why, I want to suggest that we examine the history of narratology as a history of science.

Treatment

Metagnosis ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 12-57
Author(s):  
Danielle Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Narrative Medicine ◽  
Embodied Experience ◽  
Patient Role ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
History Of ◽  
Participatory Engagement ◽  
Literature And Film

This chapter describes the narrative medicine methodology of this project, comprising three pillars. First is interdisciplinarity, bridging clinical and scientific research; history of science and medicine; literature and film; literary criticism and theory; and philosophy, among others. The use of rhetoric in such discourses is discussed, as well as the opportunity for meaningful critique in truly transdisciplinary work. Second is narrative attentiveness toward creative and clinical texts, illuminating and critiquing their rhetorical forms and effects. Third is the creation of a challenging writerly text—in this case, in moving between different roles, such as that of diagnostician, patient, critic—and highlighting the author’s own embodied experience, inviting the reader’s active involvement. This orientation shifts the narrative medicine emphasis on the clinician as reader/listener/interpreter to a mutually participatory engagement in which those in the patient role are understood as writerly readers. Finally, the figure of blindsight as a “prescription” for metagnosis is introduced.

Introduction

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Gordon ◽  
John P. McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Cultural History ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Weimar Republic ◽  
Art History ◽  
Film Theory ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Rich

This introductory chapter first sets out the book's purpose, which is to bring together a broad range of papers on diverse themes pertaining to the intellectual and cultural history of the Weimar Republic. It includes a great variety of contributions by scholars affiliated with manifold disciplines, including, but not limited to, history, political theory, philosophy, sociology, history of science, film theory, art history, and literary criticism. Few if any single-volume works have succeeded at offering a unified portrait of the rich developments of Weimar thought, and the authors believe the time is right to offer a guidebook to the German interwar era, a compendium focused primarily on the major intellectual trends of the time. The chapter then discusses the unity and diversity of Weimar thought followed by an overview of the subsequent chapters.

Piaget and Garcia's History of Science

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 654-656
Author(s):  
Harry Beilin
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
History Of

Reframing the Sciences of the Long Eighteenth Century

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 58-66
Author(s):  
Giuliano Pancaldi
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Half Century ◽  
The Past ◽  
Past Half Century ◽  
History Of ◽  
Long Eighteenth Century ◽  
Past Half

Here I survey a sample of the essays and reviews on the sciences of the long eighteenth century published in this journal since it was founded in 1969. The connecting thread is some historiographic reflections on the role that disciplines—in both the sciences we study and the fields we practice—have played in the development of the history of science over the past half century. I argue that, as far as disciplines are concerned, we now find ourselves a bit closer to a situation described in our studies of the long eighteenth century than we were fifty years ago. This should both favor our understanding of that period and, hopefully, make the historical studies that explore it more relevant to present-day developments and science policy. This essay is part of a special issue entitled “Looking Backward, Looking Forward: HSNS at 50,” edited by Erika Lorraine Milam.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document