Conversations
We checked in with the graduate students who help to organize working groups, reading series, and other events, to get the latest updates on the widely diverse and interdisciplinary life of the English Department community. We also asked them what’s it like to organize major department events.
Astrid Guigni helped put together the Ordinary Language Philosophy symposium in the fall.
> What is “ordinary language philosophy?” What is the working group all about?
A: Ordinary language philosophy can be seen as grounding philosophical investigations in the ordinary, everyday use of language…. For instance, instead of asking, “What is the ordinary?”, we would want to investigate how the word ordinary is actually used–”they are ordinary people,” “this is nothing out of the ordinary,” and so on. The OLP working group has been reading the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Stanley Cavell, and J. L. Austin. This year, we focused on Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations,” and devoted three two-days workshops to reading the “Investigations” remark by remark.
> Who attends, in general?
A: The participants are mostly professors and graduate students from throughout the humanities at Duke, but the workshops have also stimulated interest from scholars at UNC-Chapel Hill, and from the wider community.
> What were the seminars with Richard Fleming like?
A: In each of the three seminars, Professor Fleming led the group in a close reading of the “Philosophical Investigations.” Given the variety of backgrounds of the participants, the discussion ranged from philosophy, to literary criticism, to theology, and to political science.
> Highlights that stood out?
During one of the seminars, we discussed whether a disappearing chair [remark 80, from the "Investigations"] could be classified as a chair. Wittgenstein asks us to imagine a chair that is in the room one moment and disappears the next. To help us in this thought experiment, Professor Fleming mimed for us what would be like to encounter such a fickle piece of furniture.
Kris Weberg organized the Political Theory Working Group’s symposium this spring. Like OLP, it attracts people from a wide range of fields.
K: The [Political Theory] Working Group exists to facilitate conversation about political philosophy across departmental lines, so we try to achieve as much disciplinary diversity in faculty and student participants in our meetings as possible. A typical meeting will have students and professors from English, Political Science, Literature, and often students in fields like Religion and Cultural Anthropology. We’ve even had some people from Economics and Law show up at either the meetings or the symposium.
Weberg describes the meetings as an “open environment” for discussion: “Because the talks and the meetings aren’t rigidly structured, the critical conversations that result can take in differing approaches and methods of considering many of the major works of political philosophy and theory.”
Erica Fretwell helps organize the Americanist Speaker Series.
>How would you describe what it’s all about?
E: The Americanist Speaker Series aims to develop a local community of scholars who are interested in interrogating “Americanist” studies within and across disciplinary, methodological and geographic lines.
>Who attends? What is a typical meeting like?
E: We are fortunate to have an eclectic mix of attendees and participants, with grad students, professors, and post-docs from UNC, NC State and Duke English departments constituting the group itself. Our meetings have featured ‘out-of-towners’ who are researching at the National Humanities Center (such as Ellen Garvey), poets and novelists (Rachel Blau DuPlessis, Randall Keenan), and instructors from East Carolina University, Wake Forest, and UNC (Mikko Tuhkanen, Jennifer Ho).
>Highlights that stood out – particular speakers that interested you, or great discussions?
E: All our speakers have provided us with new approaches to studying American literature and culture. Recently, Bruce Barnhart spoke about the vibratory resonances between Kamau Brathwaite’s poetry and Coleman Hawkins’ jazz performances, which I think spoke to the interests of many people in the department.
> How did you get involved as an organizer? What are the pros and cons of doing that kind of work?
A: I became involved by attending the working group’s meetings during its first year. Helping to organize the group is time consuming, but very useful. I have learned how to organize the details of an invited speaker’s visit, what issues are involved in funding a series of workshops, and how to put together a press release.
K: It’s interesting work, and quite useful given the nature of university work more generally. I’ve essentially learned how to put together a conference in my three years as the Working Group’s administrative assistant… Reserving rooms, arranging travel for speakers, keeping track of scheduled events and colleagues’ and professors’ schedules, how to anticipate and create turnout — really, the sorts of talents anyone going into the profession will find themselves using the rest of their careers.
E: In my first few years at Duke, I always enjoyed attending the Speaker Series; and so I was happy to organize it when the opportunity arose last year. The best part of organizing the series is getting to meet and converse with the speakers themselves. It is infinitely helpful and inspirational to see what other people are doing within the field, how they have come to do the work they do, and how they go about doing that work. Researching and writing can be so isolating at times, and the Speaker Series really throws into relief the fact that all our work is, at heart, conversational.