Over at Room for Debate in the NYT:
A recent Times article described the use of neurological research and cognitive science in the field of literary theory.
“At a time when university literature departments are confronting painful budget cuts, a moribund job market and pointed scrutiny about the purpose and value of an education in the humanities, the cross-pollination of English and psychology is providing a revitalizing lift,” the article said.
Does this research — “neuro lit” is one of its nicknames — energize literature departments, and, more broadly, generate excitement for the humanities? Is it yet another passing fad in liberal arts education? If the answer is both, why does theory matter, even if we sometimes don’t understand what the scholars are saying?
William M. Chace, English professor at Emory College, Elif Batuman, author, “The Possessed”, William Pannapacker, English professor at Hope College, Marco Roth, founding editor of n+1, Blakey Vermeule, English professor at Stanford, and Michael Holquist, comparative literature professor emeritus at Yale dicuss.