search the archive
search the archive
CFP: "Angel of Newness" (Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies 37,2)
full name / name of organization:
National Taiwan Normal University
Vol. 37 | No. 2 | September 2011
“Angel of Newness”
In his “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” Walter Benjamin famously reads the Paul Klee painting Angelus Novus, not as a “New Angel” in keeping with the original title of this watercolor, but as an “Angel of History.” Benjamin describes the angel as flying backwards (and thus looking at the past) toward the future, blown by a huge storm. This storm, Benjamin says, is what we call progress.
Benjamin’s critique, via the Klee piece, of a progressionist view of time is one of many famous examples that set up duality or dialectic of “history” and “newness.” Not so long ago, critical inquiries into the question of (post)modernity had to grapple with this history-newness tension. More recently, as globalization studies have gained currency, the rhetoric of newness has once again come into play, this time as a figure of globalization now taken as the unprecedented version of modernity. Today, it seems that reflection on any aspect of globalization has to align itself with the thesis of newness: a new mode of capitalism, new international relations, new technologies, new realities, and so on. On the other hand, postcolonial and diasporic writers seem to have been weaned on the impossibility of a clean break from the past.
In a more textualizing trajectory, Paul de Man employs the concept of newness in the context of what he calls our “literary modernity.” Reading against Nietzsche’s conception of newness or “life” as the ability to forget what precedes the present, de Man reformulates this rejection of the past as an act of self-critique and calls for a conception of literary history that can apply to history in general as a mode of self-interrogation.
Newness, as a matter of fact, is nothing new at all. Every historical age is in one way or another driven by an impulse to distinguish itself from the past—hence the commonplaceness of newness as a figure of self-configuration. Yet, if the impetus of newness is always already age-old, what is new about newness at present is perhaps the way in which current discourses on globalization tap into newness intensively and extensively.
What then is at stake in this conceiving of the current historical conjuncture in the light of the idiom of newness? How is newness at play in discursive practices which have sought to name and rename our time and often in terms of a “post”—the postmodern, the postcolonial, the post-national, the transnational, the post-ideological, the posthuman, and the post-9/11? And what exactly is so new about the putatively new technology, new media, new affective relationships, new geopolitical dynamics, and/or new forms of resistance today?
If we are indeed faced with the radically new, what are some of the approaches we have developed in response to it? Does the impetus of the truly new mean that the compulsion to repeat is no longer with us? How may the notion of newness generate new lineaments of selfhood, new subjectivities, or new identities?
Or, in any particular disciplinary field, how has the idiom of newness been factored into this field’s self-conception? What new theoretical paradigms have emerged that are claiming a marked departure from what has come before?
In a more general way, how has the rhetoric of newness come to register the cultural imaginary, political agendas, faith, or everyday life in a given historical and cultural context? How has “newness” helped establish, elucidate, or critique the “historical view” of a given period?
Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies is a peer-reviewed English-language journal devoted to offering innovative perspectives on literary and cultural issues. A premier journal in its field in Taiwan, Concentric boasts a strong editorial and advisory team that consists of scholars from across the world.
The journal has collaborated with distinguished scholars as guest editors, including Joyce Chi-Hui Liu, Charles Shepherdson, Chaoyang Liao, Scott Slovic, Shirley Geok-lin Lim, María Herrera-Sobek, Ying-hsiung Chou, Wlad Godzich, Ban Wang, and Hanping Chiu.
Concentric invites submissions related to the special issue topic, and also welcomes papers on general topics. The focus can be on any historical period and any region. Any critical approach may be employed so long as the paper demonstrates a distinctive contribution to scholarship in the given field.
Manuscript Submission Guidelines
1. Manuscripts should be submitted in English. Please send the manuscript, a 300-word abstract, 5-6 keywords, and a vita as Word-attachments to . Alternatively, please mail us two hard copies and an IBM-compatible diskette copy. Concentric will acknowledge receipt of the submission but will not return it after review. The ideal length of the article should be within the range of 6,000-10,000 words.
2. Manuscripts should be prepared according to the latest edition of the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. Except for footnotes in single space, manuscripts must be double-spaced, typeset in 12-point Times New Roman.
3. To facilitate the journal’s anonymous refereeing process, there must be no indication of personal identity or institutional affiliation in the manuscript proper. The author may cite his/her previous works, but only in the third person.
4. Please attach or enclose a cover letter stating that the manuscript is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
5. If the paper has been published or submitted elsewhere in a language other than English, please also submit a copy of the non-English version. Concentric may not consider submissions already available in other languages.
6. One copy of the journal and fifteen off-prints of the article will be provided to the author(s) on publication.
7. It is the journal’s policy to require all authors to sign an assignment of copyrights form.