Journal of Literary Theory Vol. 15, No. 2 (2021)
Special Issue »Concepts: Formation, Functions and Limits«
Submission Deadline: 1 April 2021
Call for Articles
The proximity of most cultural studies and humanities to more or less radical forms of constructivism is accompanied by a fundamental skepticism towards generic concepts that purpote to accurately describe something beyond the individual. In literary studies, for example, this applies to the terms ›period‹ and ›genre‹ as well as to individual terms for periods and genres. On the one hand, such terms have remained indispensable structuring devices, while on the other hand they appear to many to be usable only in didactic contexts. This skepticism is encouraged by an interest in the individual and uniquely successful work of art, which seems to resist a ›subordination‹ to concepts. In their practical application, a discrepancy becomes apparent between theoretical demands on concepts and their definition on the one hand and the often confusing and sometimes even inconsistent conditions of application that are due to the historically variable subject matter on the other. This has various consequences: Many contributions dedicated to the elucidation of a concept state that it is particularly difficult, if not impossible, to define it. Additionally, it is often claimed that terms of period and genre are always ›hybrid‹ or ›mixed‹. At the same time, however, lists of defining characteristics for literary genres or subgenres are used, most notably in textbooks. Praxeological studies also show that concepts are employed differently in literary studies relative to their context of use and objective: While, for example, in literary history a particular generic concept (›realism‹) is frequently used as a matter of course in order to incorporate a number of literary texts, once an individual text is at stake the need arises to combine several such concepts in order to do justice to its individual interpretive features. – Based on these observations, JLT issue 15/2 will be devoted to the formation of terms in literary studies and history.
The following topics and aspects could be covered:
- Strategies of concept formation appropriate to literature and literary history: What are the advantages and problems of e.g. classical feature-based procedures, what are the advantages and problems of approaches that work with family resemblance or prototypes? Is there recent research on forms of conceptualization that is of interest for the purposes of literary studies?
- Relationship between historical and descriptive concepts: Genre theorists have pointed out that a clear distinction should be made between historical concepts and their reconstruction in descriptive language. However, this is rarely consistently considered in the practice of literary studies. What is the reason for this? Is there no problem here at all? Would more complex solutions have to be developed? Are there different restrictions in different cultures of literary studies concerning the types of terms for which the distinction must be taken into account (e.g. terms for the classification of genres vs. terms for the classification of character behavior)?
- Aesthetic theory and literary concepts: Are there aspects of literary works that resist conceptual representation?
- Concept formation and empirical analysis, e.g. in the psychology of literary reception or in digital literary analysis: Can the results of empirical analysis augment or correct concepts that have been defined in literary studies by way of traditional methods?
- Conceptual politics: Is it central, when using and introducing concepts, to consider the interests are thereby reflected, reinforced, or disadvantaged?
- Praxeological studies on the way specific terms are used in literary studies: What functions do these concepts have? What functions do the different meta-linguistic statements about concepts have (from the rigorously established postulate of clarity to the topically expressed skepticism towards terminological definitions)?
- Conceptual relations: How can informative and appropriate term associations or conceptual taxonomies be designed?
We encourage submissions by scholars from all fields of literary studies as well as neighbouring disciplines, e.g. the philosophy of art, media studies, art history, and musicology. Articles in which individual literary texts or a corpus of literary texts are interpreted can only be considered if they feature a strong focus on systematic and theoretical questions.
Contributions should not exceed 50,000 characters in length and have to be submitted by 1 April 2021. Please submit your contribution electronically via our website www.jltonline.de under »Articles«.
Articles are chosen for publication by an international advisory board in a double-blind review process.
For further information about JLT and to view the submission guidelines, please visit www.jltonline.de/index.php/articles (»About JLT« and »For Authors«) or contact the editorial office at jlt@phil.uni-goettingen.de.
SUBMISSIONS THAT DO NOT FOCUS ON ONE OF OUR SPECIAL TOPICS CAN BE SUBMITTED CONTINUOUSLY VIA OUR WEBSITE.
JLT aims to publish work on fundamental issues in methodology and the construction of theories and concepts, as well as articles on particular literary theories. Case studies, i.e. studies on specific authors, works, or problems of literary history, are accepted only if they adopt a predominantly systematic perspective, contribute to the reconstruction of the history of literary theory, or pursue innovative methods. Moreover, the Journal of Literary Theory contains work reviewing and outlining trends of theoretical debates in literary theory and related disciplines.
Please contact the editorial office if you have further questions.
JLT - Journal of Literary Theory
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Seminar für Deutsche Philologie
Käte-Hamburger-Weg 3
37073 Göttingen
0049 - (0)551 - 39 – 7516
JLT@phil.uni-goettingen.de
www.JLTonline.de
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jlt