search the archive
search the archive
[UPDATE] "Angel of Newness" (Concentric special issue) -- deadline extended to 3/20
full name / name of organization:
Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University
Call for Contributions --
Deadline extended to March 20, 2011. Authors who wish to submis should turn in an abstract and a list of keywords prior to February 28.
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 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?
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?
The journal has collaborated with distinguished scholars as guest editors, among whom Hanping Chiu, Wlad Godzich, María Herrera-Sobek, Serenella Iovino, Chaoyang Liao, Shirley Geok-lin Lim, Fang-mei Lin, Joyce C. H. Liu, Charles Shepherdson, Scott Slovic, Frank W. Stevenson, Ban Wang, and Shin Yamashiro. Past contributors include Ronald Lynn Bogue, Vilashini Cooppan, Sneja Gunew, Haiyan Lee, Hugh J. Silverman, Frank Webster, Rob Wilson, and Gang Gary Xu.
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.
For submissions or general inquiries, contact us as follows:
Editor, Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies
For manuscript submission guidelines, please visit our website: