A Group Studying Literature -- And Beyond

John Nash's
columns
demarcated
boundaries
of single-
family
housing.
See reference page

Collaboration and communication were key goals when the Townsend Center initiated its Working Groups program in 1992. Research in the humanities traditionally had been seen as the province of the individual researcher, and the product of that research was defined as the single-authored monograph. The final decades of the 20th century, however, saw the rapid expansion of interdisciplinary research and the tendency of scholars, particularly those of the younger generation, to publish their research in books aimed at a broader readership.

The so-called "death of the monograph" signifies as well the "death" of our image of the lone humanities scholar and a much more important role for collaborative activity. Individual humanities researchers, whether at the dissertation level or well advanced in their careers, seek communication and the sharing of ideas and practices with colleagues in other fields.

The Working Groups program was founded to respond to these needs, and its history at Berkeley demonstrates the vitality that interdisciplinary communication engenders. Humanities faculty and students are enabled to step outside the realm of their individual studies, and outside their departments, to compare different perspectives, methodologies, and pedagogical strategies.

Organized by graduate students in English, the Nineteenth-Century British Cultural Studies working group is an outstanding case in point. The group studies British literature and culture "with an eye for the political considerations inherent in its aesthetic values," explains its graduate student coordinator, Karen Tongson. Literary critics and historians with an interest in the Early Romantic, Victorian, and Modernist periods bring a range of theoretical and methodological approaches to study Britain in the 19th century.

Marcus's book exemplifies the fresh and significant inquiries that can result from the kind of interdisciplinary approach to research that the working groups encourage.

"One of the main advantages is that students get a chance to discuss ideas with people in other departments, which enhances their own interdisciplinary efforts," says Katherine Snyder, a professor of English and the faculty sponsor of the 19th century British studies group. "It gives our graduate students a chance to interact with people who are producing new, exciting, and innovative work in the field, allowing them to network both professionally and intellectually."

Professor of English Sharon Marcus, who has twice been the featured speaker at the 19th century British studies group, certainly is producing cutting-edge work. Her newly published book, Apartment Stories, is a thoroughly original study of urban history, architecture, and gender in mid-19th century London and Paris. The book exemplifies the fresh and significant inquiries that can result from the kind of interdisciplinary approach to research that the working groups encourage.

By studying literature of that period, along with architectural design, urban demography, and property law, Marcus identified the pivotal role that apartment houses played in intersecting the seemingly separate spheres of home and city life. Other theorists and historians have written about the Victorian ideal of a private, domestic sphere in which women kept themselves, and a public, urban sphere in which men freely moved and conducted their business. In her book, Marcus reveals that the domestic and the urban were not so neatly divided during this period, and that there actually was a good deal of fluidity between these spheres of private and public, feminine and masculine.

Part of what makes her book unique is her spotlight on a distinct subgenre of British literature -- urban ghost stories -- that had received no prior scholarly attention. Ghost stories by Dickens and many lesser-known writers flourished in England during the 1850s and 1860s, Marcus writes, at the same time when London's suburbs of single-family homes began to replicate some of the conditions they were designed to circumvent -- namely, crowding, dirtiness, and subdivision into rentals. "Haunted-house stories broadcast the urban deformation of the domestic ideal," she writes. "They concentrated on houses that were rented, not owned . . . and they set in motion ghosts who attacked the middle-class home's status as an insular, individuating single-family structure."

Marcus first spoke to the 19-century British studies group when her book was in progress, and she says the intellectual discourse at the meeting helped shape her work. "The questions that people in the group asked were resonating in my head for quite a while and definitely influenced my revisions," she recalls. "It gave me a better idea of how to write the book's introduction and how to make the work accessible to a larger audience."

The group and another Townsend Center working group, called Comparison and Interdisciplinarity, recently co-hosted a second talk with Marcus in order to query her about her methodology. Students and colleagues asked questions such as, how does one produce a work of literary criticism and cultural history that incorporates several different fields? What procedures are used in other disciplines, and how do they affect literary criticism?

Laura Schattschneider, a graduate student in comparative literature who is involved with both working groups, echoes the sentiment of others when she says her individual work has benefited greatly from these group discussions. "Being in conversation with other scholars who compare literature and history certainly has made me a more rigorous historian and literary critic," she says.

Next essay: A New Look at Asians in American Literature

Framing the Questions: Home | Introduction | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Links | Site Map


John Nash's columns demarcated boundaries of single- family housing. See reference page	Collaboration and communication were key goals when the Townsend Center initiated its Working Groups program in 1992. Research in the humanities traditionally had been seen as the province of the individual researcher, and the product of that research was defined as the single-authored monograph. The final decades of the 20th century, however, saw the rapid expansion of interdisciplinary research and the tendency of scholars, particularly those of the younger generation, to publish their research in books aimed at a broader readership. The so-called "death of the monograph" signifies as well the "death" of our image of the lone humanities scholar and a much more important role for collaborative activity. Individual humanities researchers, whether at the dissertation level or well advanced in their careers, seek communication and the sharing of ideas and practices with colleagues in other fields. The Working Groups program was founded to respond to these needs, and its history at Berkeley demonstrates the vitality that interdisciplinary communication engenders. Humanities faculty and students are enabled to step outside the realm of their individual studies, and outside their departments, to compare different perspectives, methodologies, and pedagogical strategies. Organized by graduate students in English, the Nineteenth-Century British Cultural Studies working group is an outstanding case in point. The group studies British literature and culture "with an eye for the political considerations inherent in its aesthetic values," explains its graduate student coordinator, Karen Tongson. Literary critics and historians with an interest in the Early Romantic, Victorian, and Modernist periods bring a range of theoretical and methodological approaches to study Britain in the 19th century.

Marcus's book exemplifies the fresh and significant inquiries that can result from the kind of interdisciplinary approach to research that the working groups encourage.	"One of the main advantages is that students get a chance to discuss ideas with people in other departments, which enhances their own interdisciplinary efforts," says Katherine Snyder, a professor of English and the faculty sponsor of the 19th century British studies group. "It gives our graduate students a chance to interact with people who are producing new, exciting, and innovative work in the field, allowing them to network both professionally and intellectually." Professor of English Sharon Marcus, who has twice been the featured speaker at the 19th century British studies group, certainly is producing cutting-edge work. Her newly published book, Apartment Stories, is a thoroughly original study of urban history, architecture, and gender in mid-19th century London and Paris. The book exemplifies the fresh and significant inquiries that can result from the kind of interdisciplinary approach to research that the working groups encourage. By studying literature of that period, along with architectural design, urban demography, and property law, Marcus identified the pivotal role that apartment houses played in intersecting the seemingly separate spheres of home and city life. Other theorists and historians have written about the Victorian ideal of a private, domestic sphere in which women kept themselves, and a public, urban sphere in which men freely moved and conducted their business. In her book, Marcus reveals that the domestic and the urban were not so neatly divided during this period, and that there actually was a good deal of fluidity between these spheres of private and public, feminine and masculine. Part of what makes her book unique is her spotlight on a distinct subgenre of British literature -- urban ghost stories -- that had received no prior scholarly attention. Ghost stories by Dickens and many lesser-known writers flourished in England during the 1850s and 1860s, Marcus writes, at the same time when London's suburbs of single-family homes began to replicate some of the conditions they were designed to circumvent -- namely, crowding, dirtiness, and subdivision into rentals. "Haunted-house stories broadcast the urban deformation of the domestic ideal," she writes. "They concentrated on houses that were rented, not owned . . . and they set in motion ghosts who attacked the middle-class home's status as an insular, individuating single-family structure." Marcus first spoke to the 19-century British studies group when her book was in progress, and she says the intellectual discourse at the meeting helped shape her work. "The questions that people in the group asked were resonating in my head for quite a while and definitely influenced my revisions," she recalls. "It gave me a better idea of how to write the book's introduction and how to make the work accessible to a larger audience." The group and another Townsend Center working group, called Comparison and Interdisciplinarity, recently co-hosted a second talk with Marcus in order to query her about her methodology. Students and colleagues asked questions such as, how does one produce a work of literary criticism and cultural history that incorporates several different fields? What procedures are used in other disciplines, and how do they affect literary criticism? Laura Schattschneider, a graduate student in comparative literature who is involved with both working groups, echoes the sentiment of others when she says her individual work has benefited greatly from these group discussions. "Being in conversation with other scholars who compare literature and history certainly has made me a more rigorous historian and literary critic," she says.