3 FEBRUARY, 12.15
ROOM 10.019 SCHWARZMAN CENTRE
Do we disagree with one another enough in early modern studies? When we do disagree, what are we trying or hoping to achieve? If we avoid disagreement, what makes it seem unpalatable? What do we risk when we disagree, and what do we risk when we don’t?
These are questions that are alive across the academic humanities, and in the wider culture. But is there something distinctive about the way we might pursue them as scholars of the early modern? What might our period have to teach us about ways of embracing, or avoiding, disagreement? René Descartes, in his Discourse on the Method, wrote: ‘I have never observed that any previously unknown truth has been discovered by means of the disputations practised in the schools. For so long as each side strives for victory, more effort is put into establishing plausibility than in weighing reasons for and against.’ It was convenient to define one’s own arguments against sterile models of scholastic debate in this way, but what cultures of disagreement in fact existed in this period, and how might they help us shape our own?
This session will both involve, and invite reflection on, scholarly and critical disagreement. Emma Smith and Bart Van Es will introduce their current and past work, describing the ways in which their approaches have been shaped by productive disagreements. They will also identify some points at which they disagree – or might disagree – with one another, beginning with the distinction between the author and the book as the object of literary-critical scrutiny. Attendees will be invited both to engage with the specific issues that the speakers address, and to reflect upon the act of disagreement itself, including how it might function differently across disciplines and career stages.
All welcome, refreshments.
