TEXTS ON THE MOVE: TEXTUALITY AND HISTORICITY REVISITED

The last time texts were brought onto the general theoretical and methodological agenda of the human and social sciences, they were reintroduced into history in terms of an indefinite set of indefinitely complex contexts, which gave every text a specific date and location in a network of other texts and events. A couple of decades later, however, a more prominent feature of texts seems to be that they are permanently on the move: they circulate, have effects on other things, change and transform realities, and are at the same time themselves translated and modified. In the literature exploring the textuality of history, these dimensions have been under‐theorized and often ignored. To meet this challenge, we need to develop concepts and approaches that enable us to place the mobility of texts as well as their mobilizing force at the center of our current historical concerns. In this article we will explore what the consequences of this move could be, and what resources are already at hand in different scholarly traditions. Exploring the entanglements between actor‐network theory (ANT in the version of Bruno Latour), on the one hand, and literary criticism, linguistics, and book history, on the other, enables us to focus on how texts move and how they move others. We will proceed in this essay by identifying three decisive moments in twentieth‐ and twenty‐first‐century textual scholarship, often conceptualized as “turns,” which are linked to the works of three path‐breaking authors and which at the same time represent three different stages or forms of textuality: the linguistic turn (Saussure), the turn to writing (Derrida), and the turn to print (Eisenstein). Our discussions of these three moments and forms of textuality aim at uncovering how they also represent seminal moments in Bruno Latour's development of the theoretical and methodological complex now referred to as ANT.     

POSTMODERNISM,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND HISTORY: RETURNING TO AN UNFINISHED AGENDA

Recognizing that the vogue of postmodernism has passed, Simon Susen seeks to assess whatever enduring impact it may have had on the social sciences, including historiography. Indeed, the postmodern turn, as he sees it, seems to have had particular implications for our understanding of the human relationship with history. After five exegetical chapters, in which he seems mostly sympathetic to postmodernism, Susen turns to often biting criticism in a subsequent chapter. He charges, most basically, that postmodernists miss the self‐critical side of modernity and tend to overreact against aspects of modernism. That overreaction is evident especially in the postmodern preoccupation with textuality and discourse, which transforms sociology into cultural studies and historiography into a form of literature. But as Susen sees it, a comparable overreaction has been at work in the postmodern emphasis on new, “little” politics, concerned with identity and difference, at the expense of more traditional large‐scale politics and attendant forms of radicalism. His assessment reflects the “emancipatory” political agenda he assigns to the social sciences. Partly because that agenda inevitably affects what he finds to embrace and what to criticize, aspects of his discussion prove one‐sided. And he does not follow through on his suggestions that postmodernist insights entail a sort of inflation of history or historicity. Partly as a result, his treatment of “reason,” universal rights, and reality (including historiographical realism) betrays an inadequate grasp of the postmodern challenge—and opportunity. In the last analysis, Susen's understanding of the historical sources of postmodernism is simply too limited, but he usefully makes it clear that we have not put the postmodernist challenge behind us.     

The importance of materials R&D to the UK and the role of its National Physical Laboratory

Abstract

The importance of materials R&D to a modern economy, which arises because of the global competition between manufacturers and the essential maturity of all manufacturing industries, is illustrated with direct examples from the semiconductor industry. One result of this R&D is that the consumption of materials per capita decreases as the wealth per capita increases. The development of the materials work at the UK National Physical Laboratory since its foundation is then briefly reviewed, together with its development to meet modern demands. The resulting sophistication in the R&D demanded is illustrated and the link to computer assisted modelling, together with the necessity for extreme precision of input data, is emphasised. The type of materials work most intimately connected with maintenance of standards and metrology is then demonstrated.     

Deconstructing Context: Exposing Derrida

Deconstruction has become a theme in various strands of geographical research. It has not, however, been the subject of much explicit commentary. This paper elaborates on some basic themes concerning the relationship between deconstruction and conceptualizations of context, with particular reference to issues of textual interpretation. The double displacement of textuality characteristic of deconstruction is discussed, followed by a consideration of the themes of 'writing' and 'iterability' as distinctive figures for an alternative spatialization of concepts of context. It is argued that deconstruction informs a questioning of the normative assumptions underwriting the value and empirical identity of context.     

Was William Shakespeare an Eighteenth-Century Geographer? Constructing Histories of Geographical Knowledge

A Wittgensteinian view of language and meaning is employed in a modified approach to the historiography of geography which steers between socio-economic approaches and the scepticism engendered by post-structuralist theories of language, so enabling connections between geography and humanism to be explored. The contextual history which flows from this method is exemplified by an analysis of eighteenth-century editions of Shakespeare and the approaches they adopted to discussing Shakespeare's knowledge of geography and the natural world. The early eighteenth century edited Shakespeare in the light of subsequent knowledge of nature, thus removing him from historical context and rendering him as an eighteenth century geographer. By contrast, later editions, starting with Samuel Johnson's (1765), attempted to recover the geographical knowledge Shakespeare could have possessed in the Tudor period. The two editorial projects are related back to the religious, natural philosophical and historical beliefs of the editors. Individual intellects, the history of textuality and the shifting affiliations of geography in the division of knowledge need to be addressed more closely in future work on the history of geography.