{"title":"判决及其公众","authors":"Elizabeth S. Anker","doi":"10.1353/mfs.2024.a928339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This response essay overviews the timely interventions of Michael W. Clune’s A Defense of Judgment , which was published amid a larger sociopolitical crisis in expert judgment. Clune productively develops an account of the specialized nature of literary expertise. However, this essay also asks whether too much force is attributed to the logic of the market, and it similarly questions the vision of the public implicit to Clune’s model of literary studies.","PeriodicalId":509181,"journal":{"name":"MFS Modern Fiction Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judgment and Its Publics\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth S. Anker\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/mfs.2024.a928339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: This response essay overviews the timely interventions of Michael W. Clune’s A Defense of Judgment , which was published amid a larger sociopolitical crisis in expert judgment. Clune productively develops an account of the specialized nature of literary expertise. However, this essay also asks whether too much force is attributed to the logic of the market, and it similarly questions the vision of the public implicit to Clune’s model of literary studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MFS Modern Fiction Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MFS Modern Fiction Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/mfs.2024.a928339\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MFS Modern Fiction Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/mfs.2024.a928339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要：这篇回应文章概述了迈克尔-W-克吕尼（Michael W. Clune）的《为判断辩护》（A Defense of Judgment）一书的及时介入。Clune 对文学专业知识的专业性进行了卓有成效的阐述。然而，这篇文章也提出了一个问题：市场逻辑是否被赋予了过多的力量？
Abstract: This response essay overviews the timely interventions of Michael W. Clune’s A Defense of Judgment , which was published amid a larger sociopolitical crisis in expert judgment. Clune productively develops an account of the specialized nature of literary expertise. However, this essay also asks whether too much force is attributed to the logic of the market, and it similarly questions the vision of the public implicit to Clune’s model of literary studies.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
