IN THeory 10 Fall 2013When I <strong>to</strong>ld pr<strong>of</strong>essors at my home institution that I was attending the<strong>School</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Criticism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>The</strong>ory, each had a unique, supportive response:“Ithaca is my favorite place”; “This experience will change <strong>and</strong> bettery<strong>our</strong> dissertation”; <strong>and</strong> from one member <strong>of</strong> my advisory committee, “Iwish I could go with you. This year’s slated speakers are the best I’ve everseen.” With such a chorus <strong>of</strong> affirmation—<strong>and</strong> perhaps a little envy—I left for “gorges”Ithaca, discovering that each comment resonated yet in no way captured the dazzlingdimensions <strong>of</strong> the SCT.At the SCT, I found the combination <strong>of</strong> seminars, public lectures, <strong>and</strong> social gatheringsa stimulating platform for what direc<strong>to</strong>r Am<strong>and</strong>a Anderson dubbed in her introduc<strong>to</strong>ryaddress “live intellectual work.” I discovered that the SCT, as a program, enacts therole <strong>of</strong> the philosopher that Michel Serres describes in Genesis. Instead <strong>of</strong> dwelling in therealm <strong>of</strong> the “thinkable,” Serres argues that the philosopher should probe the depths <strong>and</strong>boundaries <strong>of</strong> the “unthinkable.” “This is philosophizing,” he affirms, <strong>and</strong> the SCT <strong>to</strong>oaffirms through its attentive selection <strong>of</strong> thinkers on the vanguard <strong>of</strong> new contributions<strong>to</strong> the “multiple” (adopting Serres’s term) worlds <strong>of</strong> critical theory. It is within theseanimated worlds that the SCT invites its participants <strong>to</strong> collectively contribute <strong>to</strong> new<strong>and</strong> unthought critical imaginings.I <strong>to</strong>ok part in Jane Bennett’s seminar, “A Political Ecology <strong>of</strong> Things,” which worked asa forum for underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> elaborating the evolving field <strong>of</strong> new materialism. Forme, the seminar became an epicenter <strong>of</strong> the mesmerizing <strong>and</strong> unexpected. With <strong>read</strong>ingsranging from Walt Whitman <strong>and</strong> George Perec <strong>to</strong> films such as Agnes Varda’s Gleaners<strong>and</strong> I <strong>and</strong> Fiamma Montezemolo’s Traces/Rastros, the class sought <strong>to</strong> evaluate traditional<strong>and</strong> untraditional s<strong>our</strong>ces in the search for a meaningful philosophy <strong>of</strong> materialism.“SCT <strong>of</strong>fers ... a vibrant means <strong>to</strong> intellectual insight<strong>and</strong> emerging possibilities.”Perhaps most surprising <strong>to</strong> me was <strong>our</strong> seminar’s unexpected <strong>read</strong>ings <strong>of</strong> worksuncommonly adopted in materialist explorations. For example, we turned <strong>to</strong> textsfrom the canon <strong>of</strong> continental philosophy, like Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra <strong>and</strong>Alfred Whitehead’s Process <strong>and</strong> Reality, <strong>to</strong> question whether they <strong>to</strong>o may <strong>of</strong>fer newlanguage <strong>and</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> evaluation <strong>to</strong> materialist philosophies. With Zarathustra,we asked if the text could be <strong>read</strong>, not as an allegory or the “gospel <strong>of</strong> Zarathustra,”but instead as a tale <strong>of</strong> a w<strong>and</strong>erer walking the earth, similar <strong>to</strong> yet divergent fromThoreau’s form <strong>of</strong> “sauntering.” We also inquired if we could evaluate Zarathustra asa figure demonstrating a strange br<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> eco-materialism through his repeated refrain<strong>to</strong> “remain faithful <strong>to</strong> the earth.” With Whitehead’s immense work, we performed asimilar excavation. While Process <strong>and</strong> Reality has been poorly co-opted for theories indisability studies, as Joseph Valente argued during his public lecture, <strong>and</strong> re<strong>to</strong>oledfor religious schools <strong>of</strong> thought like process theology, we asked if Whitehead’s workmight effectively influence ideas <strong>and</strong> practices in new materialism. Can we imagineWhitehead’s ambiguous world <strong>of</strong> “eternal objects” <strong>and</strong> “actual entities”—the processes<strong>of</strong> “prehensions,” “ingressions,” <strong>and</strong> charges <strong>of</strong> negative <strong>and</strong> positive “feelings”—as adescription <strong>of</strong> <strong>our</strong> systems <strong>of</strong> engagement with the material world? <strong>The</strong>se untraditional,renewed <strong>read</strong>ings <strong>of</strong> popularly studied texts opened my mind <strong>to</strong> their capacities forappropriation <strong>and</strong> contribution <strong>to</strong> theories in new materialism.By the end <strong>of</strong> <strong>our</strong> six-week seminar, <strong>our</strong> class reiterated some <strong>of</strong> <strong>our</strong> central concernsas questions: How is novelty produced <strong>and</strong> do we need it for political action? Whenshould scholars enact or withhold acts <strong>of</strong> judgment <strong>and</strong> critique in order <strong>to</strong> examinematerial interconnectedness <strong>and</strong> on<strong>to</strong>logical possibilities? Can scholars be humanistswithout being anthropocentric? And perhaps one <strong>of</strong> <strong>our</strong> more polarizing questions:Does new materialism have a feminist or feminine sensibility? Overall, the range <strong>of</strong>related <strong>to</strong>pics discussed in <strong>our</strong> seminar, mini-seminars, <strong>and</strong> public lectures prompteda key acknowledgement that <strong>our</strong> time constitutes a strange, paradoxical moment inhis<strong>to</strong>ry—a moment where some theories in new materialism call for a move away fromhuman centrality while notions <strong>of</strong> the anthropocene reinstitute the human as a s<strong>our</strong>ce <strong>of</strong>primary agential power.<strong>The</strong>se questions <strong>and</strong> conversations were not limited <strong>to</strong> SCT scheduled events <strong>and</strong>venues. Part <strong>of</strong> what makes the SCT the SCT are the participant-organized activities,including dissertation-writing workshops, film screenings, <strong>read</strong>ing groups, etc.My favorite <strong>of</strong> these extracurricularactivities was an impromptu roundtablecomparing his<strong>to</strong>rical materialism withnew materialism. During this wellattendedevent, participants from variousseminars articulated strengths <strong>and</strong>weaknesses <strong>to</strong> both approaches, <strong>and</strong>discussed ways scholars might use onemethod or the other <strong>to</strong> treat a concreteissue like, as <strong>our</strong> group attempted,Guantanamo Bay.<strong>The</strong>se numerous intellectualopportunities resulted in a personalepiphany. During Bennett’s seminar <strong>and</strong>throughout the SCT as a whole thereemerged a striking emphasis on the ethics<strong>of</strong> process <strong>and</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> becoming. Wesituated these themes alongside inquirieson the stakes <strong>of</strong> stasis, indifference, ordamaging repetition—referencing suchdestructive patterns as human habits<strong>of</strong> treating waste <strong>and</strong> the environmen<strong>to</strong>r, as Catherine Malabou’s lecturedescribed, the paralyzing effects <strong>of</strong> a loss<strong>of</strong> “wonder” <strong>and</strong> utter “disaffection”in neurobiological, ideological, <strong>and</strong>embodied senses. <strong>The</strong>se concernsechoed more deeply within me when<strong>our</strong> class confronted the ethics <strong>of</strong> processin Serres’s strange lament that we more<strong>of</strong>ten use weapons <strong>to</strong> “s<strong>to</strong>p battle” than“for fighting” itself. In my mind, Serresgrieves not the loss <strong>of</strong> violence butinstead the adoption <strong>of</strong> objects as endsinstead <strong>of</strong> means. For Serres, the problemlies in fetishizing an object rather thanseeing it as potentiality itself. His antidote<strong>to</strong> the devastating effects <strong>of</strong> repetition <strong>and</strong>ends lies in his theory <strong>of</strong> “multiplicity,”which, <strong>to</strong> me, works as an answer <strong>to</strong>Whitehead’s call for “a principle <strong>of</strong>refreshment.” This refreshment principleaims <strong>to</strong> renew processes, shape originalpatterns, <strong>and</strong> arrange new ingressions,such that process never becomes roterepetition, but rather, a site <strong>of</strong> multiplicity<strong>and</strong> an emblem <strong>of</strong> the possible. Thisemphasis on ends <strong>and</strong> means resonatesnot just with my evolving approach <strong>to</strong>material forces in the world but also withhow I view the SCT. For me, the SCT willnever function as an end, even thoughit has ended. It will always be in process,as I am a work in progress, contributingin fresh ways <strong>to</strong> my thinking, myscholarship, <strong>and</strong> my network <strong>of</strong> alliesin the field <strong>of</strong> critical theory. In this way,the SCT <strong>of</strong>fers participants like myself avibrant means <strong>to</strong> intellectual insight <strong>and</strong>emerging possibilities.Julie McCormick WengUniversity <strong>of</strong> Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
IN THeory 11 Fall 2013Without a doubt, participatingin the SCT this summerhas been one <strong>of</strong> the bestintellectual experiences<strong>of</strong> my life. When Ifirst decided <strong>to</strong> apply for a seminarentitled “Dwelling | Telling | Selling:Contemporary Design Topographies,”I was not sure what <strong>to</strong> expect. Aftercompleting my first year as an AssistantPr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong> Spanish, I longed <strong>to</strong> be on theother side <strong>and</strong> feel like a student again.But at the same time the mixed feelingswere overwhelming: I felt nervous,curious, scared, but above all, excited <strong>and</strong>eager <strong>to</strong> experience new academic spaces<strong>and</strong> meet new people. I had no theoreticalor practical experience with Design,as I <strong>to</strong>ld the class when we introduced<strong>our</strong>selves in <strong>our</strong> first meeting. I had justfinished a PhD dissertation on spatial<strong>and</strong> urban issues a year previously, soI should have felt comfortable with theDwelling section <strong>of</strong> the seminar, butwhen Julia Reinhard Lup<strong>to</strong>n h<strong>and</strong>ed usthe syllabus, I was more concerned thanpleased <strong>to</strong> note my lack <strong>of</strong> familiaritywith most <strong>of</strong> the <strong>read</strong>ings. <strong>The</strong>y weretexts not traditionally studied in literatureprograms, such as the one I completed.However, this proved <strong>to</strong> be the best thingthat could happen <strong>to</strong> me as a scholar,since not only did my research interestswiden <strong>to</strong> include subjects I never knewI was interested in, but I also started <strong>to</strong>look at my own research in a differentlight.Faithful <strong>to</strong> the title <strong>of</strong> the seminar,Julia Lup<strong>to</strong>n opened the first classwith Heidegger’s “Building, Dwelling,Thinking” which, no matter how manytimes you have <strong>read</strong> it, always surprises.This was the first week <strong>and</strong> there wasnothing introduc<strong>to</strong>ry about it; it was asintense as it gets. Our conclusions on theHeideggerian concept <strong>of</strong> dwelling wouldhaunt each <strong>and</strong> every other discussionthroughout the seminar, in which weput Heidegger in dialogue with Arendt,Gibson, Jacobs, Le Corbusier, <strong>and</strong> DeBord, among others. We dwelled at lengthupon concepts such as labor, design,l<strong>and</strong>scape, affordances, action, br<strong>and</strong>ing,or post-Fordism in ways that transcendedthe walls <strong>of</strong> the classroom <strong>and</strong> that, forsome <strong>of</strong> us, will surely evolve beyond thissummer.<strong>The</strong> seminar provided a different <strong>and</strong>healthy space for the exchanging <strong>of</strong>ideas. I never thought I could learn somuch from—<strong>and</strong> so productively arguewith—a group <strong>of</strong> twenty individualsfrom different backgrounds <strong>and</strong> academicdisciplines united by the same <strong>to</strong>pics<strong>and</strong> themes. <strong>The</strong> seminar’s success wasunquestionably a result <strong>of</strong> Julia Lup<strong>to</strong>n’steaching methodology, her ability <strong>to</strong>listen <strong>and</strong> find interest in what everyonehad <strong>to</strong> say. A Shakespeare scholar, shebrought <strong>to</strong> class her friendliness, herperceptive thoughts on the materials, <strong>and</strong>her acute questions. And <strong>of</strong> c<strong>our</strong>se hersolid experience in design, well displayedin the creative slides she projected forus every Monday <strong>and</strong> Wednesday. Asan eighteenth- <strong>and</strong> nineteenth-centuryscholar myself, it was refreshing <strong>to</strong> seehow she drew on contemporary spatialdisc<strong>our</strong>ses for reciprocal illumination <strong>of</strong>past <strong>and</strong> present.But what makes the SCT a unique placeis not just the provocative discussionsheld in the privacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>our</strong> seminar. <strong>The</strong>sewere just the spark <strong>to</strong> ignite the fire thatwould continue <strong>to</strong> burn in the manypublic events that the SCT organizes.<strong>The</strong>re is a parallel SCT happening outsidethe classrooms, just as intensive, just asunforgettable. <strong>The</strong> public lectures, miniseminars,<strong>and</strong> colloquia complementedwell the six-week seminar, <strong>and</strong> left <strong>our</strong>heads teeming with ideas <strong>and</strong> questionsthat would stay with us for h<strong>our</strong>s. Allthese activities are woven <strong>to</strong>gether by theextraordinary work <strong>of</strong> Alice Cho <strong>and</strong> SCTDirec<strong>to</strong>r Am<strong>and</strong>a Anderson. Anderson’sincisive <strong>and</strong> sharp questions in everypublic lecture <strong>and</strong> colloquium madeall <strong>of</strong> us in the audience—not just thespeaker—reflect, think outside the box,look for answers <strong>and</strong> critically explore thetheoretical implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>our</strong> own work.And beyond these public events are themany forms <strong>of</strong> social networking at SCT,which occur in the Tuesday receptions,the local bars, the halls <strong>of</strong> Cascadilla, <strong>and</strong>the many lunch spots on campus.As a result <strong>of</strong> my SCT experience, I cameback <strong>to</strong> Dartmouth with several newresearch <strong>to</strong>pics <strong>and</strong> works in progressthat I excitedly plan <strong>to</strong> develop in theshort-term future. I am going <strong>to</strong> writean essay on affordances in nineteenthcenturySpain, drawing from thediscussions in the seminar; another oneon the poetics <strong>of</strong> indifference <strong>and</strong> wonderin Spanish literature, inspired by theilluminating talk <strong>of</strong> Catherine Malabou;<strong>and</strong> I have just proposed a panel at amajor conference about dwelling withdisabilities, combining the outcome <strong>of</strong>Julia Lup<strong>to</strong>n’s seminar <strong>and</strong> MichaelBérubé’s public lecture. I was fortunateenough <strong>to</strong> meet another participant in myseminar in the Spanish field, <strong>and</strong> <strong>to</strong>getherwe came out with a book project—acompilation <strong>of</strong> critical <strong>and</strong> theoreticalessays in Spanish for undergraduates,a work that simply does not exist at themoment. Needless <strong>to</strong> say, we were in theperfect setting <strong>to</strong> develop this kind <strong>of</strong>project. This is the best example showingthat it is possible <strong>to</strong> unite the personal<strong>and</strong> the academic in an alliance that willhave an impact in years <strong>to</strong> come.<strong>The</strong> SCT is not just about buildingacademic bridges, but personal ones: thepeople I met <strong>and</strong> the friendships I madeat <strong>Cornell</strong> strongly marked my summerexperience <strong>and</strong> made dwelling in Ithacamuch easier <strong>and</strong> more enjoyable. Becauselet’s face it: being away from home, livingin a place rented online, <strong>and</strong> facing a verydem<strong>and</strong>ing schedule in the context <strong>of</strong> thethree Hs, as I liked <strong>to</strong> call them—Heat,Humidity, Hills—made the dwellingexperience in Ithaca challenging.But a challenge easily overcome, sinceat the end <strong>of</strong> the day, the only way <strong>to</strong>think about the SCT is as an exhilaratingintellectual atmosphere, enjoyable hiking<strong>and</strong> swimming, great restaurants, goodfriends, <strong>and</strong> stimulating conversation.That’s what I call a summer well spent.Sara Muñoz-MurianaDartmouth CollegeSCT faculty <strong>and</strong> participants attend weekly colloquia.
Change language