KARSTEN PIEP 2019 8A (JUL-DEC) THREE CREDIT HOURS

PIEPK@MYUNION.EDU

(513) 421-0551

RMTH 709 INQUIRY IN THE HUMANITIES

“De septem liberalibus artibus” (circa 1473) —Johann Mentelin

SEMINAR DESCRIPTION

Taking a case studies approach, this seminar introduces students in the humanities to theories and

practices of aesthetic, cultural, historical, and literary scholarship. Building upon the study of analytical

inquiry begun in RMTH 704, RMTH 709 invites participants to immerse themselves in a number of

ongoing critical debates surrounding questions and principles of aesthetic judgment, the nature and aims

of historiography, and the theoretical and cultural underpinnings of literary interpretation. Next, having

carefully examined the socio-political contexts within which these debates occur, seminar participants

will scrutinize a number of works of applied criticism that interpret artifacts, documents, and primary

texts by utilizing various hermeneutical models and methodological approaches. Aside from illuminating

the inherently political nature of aesthetic, historical, and literary criticism, this seminar prepares

participants to articulate a theoretically grounded rationale for their own studies and to devise

interdisciplinary modes of inquiry that will guide their research.

INTEGRATION OF PROGRAM THEMES

The knowledge acquired and the skills developed in this course will allow students to evaluate and

conduct research that bears upon issues of social justice and additional program themes, including issues

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 2

of equality, democracy, economic opportunity, intellectual freedom, and human rights. The course will

include critical exploration and writing that sheds light on various uses and misuse of power in human

discourse and action. Seminar participants will discuss issues of otherness based upon race, ethnicity,

gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and other identificatory categories from interpretive frameworks

that have implications for research on creativity, difference, and social justice.

LEARNING OUTCOMES AND COMPETENCIES

RMTH 709 foregrounds Doctoral Learning Outcome II: Critical and Creative Thinking--“assess

established interpretations; “explore implications of theories, ideas, conditions, and/or practices;”

“formulate relevant questions” --as well as Ph.D. Program Outcome Vi: “Demonstrate comprehensive

knowledge of major debates, theories, methods, and approaches within the field(s).” The latter entails two

competencies: (1) “Describes major debates, theories, methods, and/or approaches within the field(s)” and

(2) “Critiques central debates, theories, methods, and/or approaches within the field(s).”

By the end of the course, students will be able to present compelling evidence of ability to formulate clear

and precise research questions, assess established interpretations and call assumptions into question, move

from theory to socially relevant discourse/writing, and construct alternative ways of confronting and

interacting with the world through language:

Identify the audience and the purpose for a range of professional, academic written texts.

Plan and execute academic writing projects with a focus the expanding/evolving nature of the

study of the humanities.

Review (summarize, relate, and critique) the relevant literature in the field.

Develop a working knowledge of at least three methods for conducting research in the

Humanities.

Identify clear and precise research questions.

Turn assumptions in questions at multiple stages of the research process.

Interpret existing literature and interact with theoretical debates to consider alternative

interpretations of existing conceptual structures regarding the field of Humanities Inquiry.

Base conclusions on arguments about the relevance/applicability/significance of evidence and

the interpretation thereof.

ASSIGNMENTS, PROCEDURES, AND EVALUATION

READING RESPONSES: To facilitate the close reading of and critical engagement with texts, seminar

participants will post altogether seven reading responses. These responses should be between 400 and

600 words long and contain specific references to and/or quotes from the text under discussion. Rather

than attempting to summarize an entire reading, the responses should focus on one idea, theme, or issue

and pursue it in greater depth, recording comments or criticisms, and raising questions.

CONFERENCE CALL DISCUSSIONS: Toward the end of each sequence, we will convene by phone to

discuss what we have learned (or failed to learn) through our close engagement with various texts.

SHORT PAPERS: Participants will produce two short papers (6-8 pages in length) that may culminate in

a final research paper: (1) a critical position paper based upon a review of pertinent aesthetic historiographical, and/or literary critical debates, (2) an evaluative paper that assesses the relative

strengths and shortcomings of one or more practical approaches to the study of primary artifacts and texts.

RESEARCH PAPER: Building upon the two short papers described above students will produce a seminar

paper related to their particular research interests within the field of humanities. The final product should

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 3

contain about 6000 words (approximately 20 pages) and engage some of the seminar readings,

supplemented by vigorous outside research, in a manner that advances the writer’s fields of inquiry.

Evaluation: Specific rubrics (expectations) will be spelled out in individual assignment descriptions.

General criteria for commendable course work include:

Presentation of clear thesis statements that are supported with reasons and sufficient

evidence.

Attendance to nuances of argument and inference through the careful exegesis of key

text passages.

Evaluation of arguments from multiple perspectives (e.g. through acknowledgement,

refutation, and/or concession).

Awareness of how gender, class, racial, and ethnic differences (or concepts thereof)

shape perceptions and constructs of knowledge.

Consistent use of scholarly tone and adherence to academic conventions of

presentation.

Persuasive writing empowered by the use of imagery, metaphor, analogy, and/or

other creative rhetorical devices.

Utilization and correct documentation of data/evidence from scholarly sources.

Integration of scholarly and creative data/evidence in a rigorous interdisciplinary

way.

Regular and informed contribution to all discussions.

Thorough and substantive revision of all written assignments when required.

Completion of all seminar requirements in a timely fashion.

RESIDENCY, MID-SEMESTER BREAK, AND VIRTUAL MID-SEMESTER RESIDENCY

RESIDENCY: July 5-12 at the Kingsgate Marriot Hotel in Cincinnati, Ohio. The week following the

Residency, July 13-20, no written assignments (papers or discussion posts) are due, but it is expected that

students will remain actively engaged in course readings.

MID-SEMESTER BREAK: No written assignments (papers or discussion posts) are due September 9-15,

but it is expected that students will remain actively engaged in course readings.

VIRTUAL MID-SEMESTER RESIDENCY (MSR):

Workshops, Friday, September 20, 7:00 – 9:00 PM ET.

Social Justice Presentation, Saturday, September 21, 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM ET.

Concentration Meetings, Saturday, September 21, 1:15 -2:15 PM ET.

Workshops, Sunday, September 22, 3:00-5:00 PM ET.

REQUIRED TEXTS

All of the required texts listed below can be accessed electronically via s through Union Institute &

University’s library, an e-reserve depository, or public internet sites. Additional texts, recommended

readings, lecture notes, handouts, et cetera will be made available through the RMTH 709 CampusWeb

site.

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 4

ADA COMPLIANCE INFORMATION

Union Institute & University is committed to providing equal access to its academic programs and

resources for individuals with disabilities. Information on ADA policies and services is located on

UI&U’s public website: https://myunion.edu/current-students/student-services/disability-services/.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Union Institute & University’s Academic Integrity policy can be found on Campus Web at

https://campusweb.myunion.edu/ICS/icsfs/Academic_Integrity_Policy.pdf?target=9ccd7549-1590-445f-

876e-a959b1724c31.

THE WRITING CENTER

Union Institute & University’s Writing Center offers self-help resources and free one-on-one tutoring

sessions over the phone for all students. Tutoring sessions are available mornings, afternoons, evenings

and weekends. Self-help resources are located at https://campusweb.myunion.edu/ICS/Campus_Life

/Campus_Groups/Writing_Center/. Appointments for tutoring by telephone can be scheduled through the

writing center’s CampusWeb group or by contacting the center (phone: 513-487-1156 or toll free: 1-800-

861-6400 ext. 1156 or email: writing-center@myunion.edu).

COURSE COMMUNICATION

Additional information will be provided throughout the semester. You will want to check your Union

email account regularly and responsibly (at least once a day).

GRADING SCALE AND SATISFACTORY ACADEMIC PROGRESS (SAP)

Grading, SAP and Financial Aid Policies can be found in the University Catalog:

http://myunion.edu/academics/catalog/.

Students in the Cohort PhD Program must make satisfactory academic progress every term. This means

that students must earn at least a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or S. Students must also successfully complete

at least 67% of cumulative credits attempted. For example, if a student has attempted 60 credit hours

during enrollment, he/she must successfully complete 40 or more of those hours. Student completion rates

are reviewed at the end of each term of attendance. Grades of U, W, I, V, NE and WIP adversely

affect a student‘s completion rate because they are calculated as attempted but not completed. This

can cause a student’s completion rate to drop below 67%. This may result in the student not

meeting the SAP requirement facing possible academic and financial aid probation and/or

dismissal from the program. Grades of C or U adversely affect the student’s GPA and academic

standing in the program. A special review will be initiated if a student receives a C, U or two or

more incomplete (I) grades.

Grading Scale

Grade Criteria

A Academic work reflects impressively thorough and accurate knowledge of assigned

material, including the complexities and nuances of major and minor theories, concepts,

and intellectual frameworks; exceptional evidence of capability to compare, assess, and

synthesize material; especially strong capability to logically critique extant theories and

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 5

claims and to develop persuasive arguments based on original thinking.

4.0 Quality Points

A- Criteria for A work not fully met.

3.70 Quality Points

B+ Criteria for B work is more fully met.

3.30 Quality Points

B Academic work reflects accurate grasp of major concepts, theories, and prevailing

knowledge; abundant evidence of capability to offer informed analysis of extant knowledge

and ideas; clear capability to synthesize and apply key information from prevailing

knowledge; appropriate critiques of extant theories and knowledge; considerable

demonstration of capability to develop and logically present own judgments.

3.0 Quality Points

B- Criteria for B work is not fully met.

2.70 Quality Points

C+ Criteria for C work is more fully met.

2.30 Quality Points

C Academic work reflects adequate familiarity with key ideas and knowledge, although

interpretations of key theories and concepts are occasionally incomplete and flawed;

written and verbal accounts of information, theories, and concepts remain primarily at the

level of description; critiques are present but not well developed with occasional

interpretive errors.

2.0 Quality Points

S Academic work reflects satisfactory completion of all prescribed learning and is equivalent

to B or better at the doctoral level on a standard letter grading scale. The S grade is used

only for ACS 897, ECL/HMS/PPS 841, 850, 860, MLK 800, MLK 890 and RSCH 900

Dissertation.

0.00 Quality Points and does not calculate into the GPA

U Academic work reflects insufficient capability to comprehend and accurately present ideas

and information; superficial and unpersuasive critiques; little evidence of capability for

original thinking. Unsatisfactory performance is defined as any performance less than C at

the doctoral level. A U grade should be given only on the basis of less than satisfactory

work and should not be given because a student has not been present in a seminar (in

such a case a V grade should be given).

0.0 Quality Points

W Withdrawal: Student initiated withdrawal from a seminar or the program. Withdrawal

from the program discontinues connection to university passwords and accounts.

I Incomplete: Student completes at least 60% of work in a seminar but less than 100% of

the required work in a seminar.

NE Never Engaged: An NE grade will be assigned during the first 21 days of each term for a

student who neither attends nor engages in a registered seminar (including the residency

sessions).

V Vanished: A V grade will be assigned six weeks after the beginning of a term by the

Dean’s Office, or during end-of-term grading by a faculty member for a student who

attends/engages in a registered seminar (including the residency sessions) but subsequently

ceases to attend/engage in the seminar and does not officially withdraw from the seminar.

WIP (No

grade)

No Grade: Faculty member has not submitted a grade for a student.

Repeated

Seminar

Students are permitted to repeat any seminar once after receiving a U. The last grade

earned is calculated in the GPA.

Successful

Completion

A grade of A through C or S is considered successful seminar completion.

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 6

Special Note Regarding Incompletes:

Students must have approval from the seminar faculty member to receive an incomplete for the term. If

this approval is not requested and approved, the student will receive a W (withdrawal) or V

(vanished), depending on the circumstances in regard to attendance in the seminar. In other words,

incompletes are not automatic and students should not assume that they can take incompletes at will. All

incomplete work for a current term should be submitted by May 15 or November 15 of the following

term. It is always best for students to stay in communication with faculty members and to try to get

all the work done for the term by the deadline. Students and faculty members should explore all

options together before deciding that the incomplete route is the one to take.

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 7

TENATIVE SEMINAR SCHEDULE

I. Inquiry (Academic Residency)

Please read all assigned texts below prior to our residency meetings.

First Session: Humanism

Rajchman, John. “Foreword.” The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature. New York: The New

Press, 2006. vii.- xviii.

Chomsky, Noam and Michel Foucault. “Debate on Human Nature and Ideal Society.” Moderator Fons

Elders. Eindhoven University of Technology. Dutch National Television TV, 1971.

http://progressivegeographies.com/2013/05/14/foucault-chomsky-debate-in-full-with-subtitles/

(You may have to click on “cc” [close captioning] to turn on English subtitles.)

Second Session: Criticism

Collins, Patricia Hill. “Fighting Words…or Yet Another Version of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’.” On

Intellectual Activism. Temple UP, 2012. 17-26.

Gunn, Giles. “Introduction.” The Culture of Criticism and the Criticism of Culture. New York & Oxford:

Oxford UP, 1988. 3-18.

Hogan, Katie. “What is Criticism on Academic Labor For?” The Critical Pulse: Thirty-Six Credos by

Contemporary Critics. Eds. Heather Steffen and Jeffery Williams. New York: Columbia

UP, 2012. 67-73.

Lowe, Lisa. “On Critique and Inheritance.” The Critical Pulse: Thirty-Six Credos by Contemporary

Critics. Eds. Heather Steffen and Jeffery Williams. New York: Columbia UP, 2012. 27-32.

Shumway, David R. “Criticism is Vital” The Critical Pulse: Thirty-Six Credos by Contemporary Critics.

Eds. Heather Steffen and Jeffery Williams. New York: Columbia UP, 2012. 202-16.

Third Session: Activism

Collins, Patricia Hill. “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of Analysis and

Connection.” On Intellectual Activism. Temple UP, 2012. 213-44.

Early, Gerald. “The Humanities & Social Change.” Deadalus 138.1 (2009): 52-57.

Negrón-Muntaner, Frances. “The Politics of Small Problems.” The Critical Pulse: Thirty-Six Credos by

Contemporary Critics. Eds. Heather Steffen and Jeffery Williams. New York: Columbia UP,

2012. 257-63.

Maxwell, Nicholas. “From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the Humanities.”

London Review of Education 5 (2007): 97-115.

Shelemay, Kay Kaufman. “Performing the Humanities at the Ethiopian Millennium.” Daedalus 138.1

(2009): 105-109.

II. Theory

July 22-August 5: Theorizing Art (two-week subunit)

Post Reading Response

Goldman, Alan H. “There are No Aesthetic Principles,” Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the

Philosophy of Art. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.

John, Eileen. “Artistic Value and Opportunistic Moralism.” Debates in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of

Art. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. 331-41.

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 8

Leddy, Thomas. “Theorizing About Art.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 26.1 (1992): 33-46.

Nathan, Daniel O. “Art, Meaning and the Artist’s Meaning.” Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the

Philosophy of Art. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.

August 5-19: Theorizing History (two-week subunit)

Post Reading Response

Jenkins, Keith. “What History Is.” Rethinking History. New York: Routledge, 2003. Evans, Richard. “Postmodernism and History.” In Defense of History. New York: Norton, 1999.

Friedman, Susan Stanford. “Making History: Reflections on Feminism, Narrative, and Desire.” The

Postmodern History Reader. New York: Routledge, 1997.

August 19-September 2: Theorizing Culture (two-week subunit)

Post Reading Response

Conference Call and Adobe Session (TBD)

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” 1985. Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial

Theory: A Reader. Eds. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman. New York: Columbia UP, 1993.

Walker, Alice. “In Search of Our Mothers’ Garden.” In Search of Our Mothers’ Garden. San

Diego, CA: Harcourt, 1983. 231-43.

Williams, Raymond. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” New Left Review

I/82 (1973): 3-16.

III. Criticism

September 2-9: Art Criticism

Critical Position Paper Due

Hamblen, Karen A. “Beyond Universalism in Art Criticism.” Pluralistic Approaches to Art Criticism

Bowling Green, OH: Popular Press, 1992.

Asaro, Mario. “Art Criticism as Social Change.” Pluralistic Approaches to Art Criticism. Bowling Green,

OH: Popular Press, 1992.

Congdon, Kirsten G. “Feminist Approaches to Art Criticism.” Pluralistic Approaches to Art Criticism

Bowling Green, OH: Popular Press, 1992.

September 9-16: Mid-Semester Break

September 16-23: Historiography

Post Reading Response

Mid-Term Residency

September 20: Workshops (7:00-9:00 PM ET)

September 21: Social Justice Presentation (11:00AM-1:00 PM ET)

September 21: Concentration Meeting: (1:15-2:15 ET)

September 22: Workshops (3:00-5:00 PM ET)

Morton, Patricia. “Black Studies/Women’s Studies: Discovering Black Women in History.” Disfigured

Images: The Historical Assault on Afro-American Women. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991.

Zinn, Howard. “Approaches.” The Politics of History. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1990.

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 9

September 23-30: Literary/Culture Criticism

Post Reading Response

Conference Call and Adobe Session (TBD)

Higgins, John. “Raymond Williams and the Problem of Ideology.” boundary 2 11.1/2 (1982-1983): 145-

54.

Williams, Sherley Anne. “Some Implications of Womanist Theory.” Callaloo 27 (1986): 303-308.

Lough, Joseph. “A Deadly Silence: Spivak’s Subaltern in Critical Cultural Studies. LOGOS & LITTERA:

Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text 1 (2014): 6-29.

IV. Interpretation

September 30-October 7: Interpreting Art

Evaluation Paper Due

Wong, Florence. “There is More to Being Chinese in America Than Chop Suey: Narrative Drawing as

Criticism in Oakland Chinatown.” Pluralistic Approaches to Art Criticism. Bowling Green, OH:

Popular Press, 1992.

Foss, Sonja K. “Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party: Empowering of Women’s Voice in Visual Art.”

Women Communicating: Studies of Women’s Talk. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1988.

October 7-14: Interpreting History

Post Reading Response

Seminar Paper Proposal Due

Bynum, Victory E. “Misshapen Identity: Memory, Folklore, and the Legend of Rachel Knight.”

Discovering the Women in Slavery: Emancipating Perspectives on the American Past. Athens,

GA: U of Georgia P, 1996.

Zinn, Howard. “Albany, Georgia, and the New Frontier.” The Politics of History. Urbana: U of Illinois P,

1990.

October 14-21: Interpreting Literature

Post Reading Response

Individual Phone Calls

Ghani. Hana' Khalief. “I was Born Black and Female: A Womanist Reading of Lorraine Hansberry‘s A

Raisin in the Sun.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1.10 (2011): 1295-1303.

JanMohamed, Abdual. “Between Speaking and Dying: Some Imperatives in the Emergence of the

Subaltern in the Context of U.S. Slavery.” Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of

an Idea. Ed. Rosalind Morris. New York: Columbia UP, 2010. 139-55.

Sinfield, Alan. “Cultural Materialism, Othello, and the Politics of Plausibility." Faultlines. Oxford:

Oxford UP, 1992. 29-51.

V. Research and Writing

October 21-28: Research and Writing Week

Adobe Presentations of Seminar Projects

October 28: First Draft of Seminar Paper Due

October 28-November 11: Revisions

RMTH 709: Inquiry in the Humanities 10

November 18: Final Draft of Seminar Paper Due