Month: January 2025

1. Introducing Reader-Response Theory in Literature Classrooms
Anderson begins by addressing the challenges students face in responding to literature, noting that their reading is shaped by biases, assumptions, and expectations, often disguised as “universal truths” (Anderson, 1991, p. 141). He argues for making students aware of these influences to enhance their engagement and understanding of texts. This pedagogical shift relies on a “rhetorical approach to literature” that integrates recent literary theories into classroom practice (Anderson, 1991, p. 141).

2. Encouraging Critical Responses through Exercises
Anderson details an exercise in which students read Washington Irving’s “The Stout Gentleman” and write reactions without specific guidance. Their responses reveal various biases, such as assumptions about genre or expectations for entertainment (Anderson, 1991, p. 142). For instance, one student expected “an action climax,” while another felt the story “was incredibly useless for any sort of entertainment” (Anderson, 1991, p. 142). These insights help students identify how their perspectives shape their interpretations.

3. Moving Beyond Superficial Reactions
Rather than dismissing student responses as inappropriate, Anderson encourages them to articulate their views and develop them into deeper analysis. For example, a student describing the story as “boring” recognized its “atmosphere of motionlessness and boredom,” which Anderson frames as a valid analytical starting point (Anderson, 1991, p. 143).

4. Highlighting the Reader’s Role in Meaning-Making
The rhetorical approach emphasizes the active role of the reader, encouraging students to consider how their backgrounds and experiences influence their interpretations. Anderson connects these discussions to broader ideological contexts, explaining that “there is no such thing as context-free discourse” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).

5. Utilizing Reading Journals to Deepen Reflection
To foster critical thinking, Anderson employs reading journals where students analyze both the text and their reactions. Drawing on scholars like Kathleen McCormick, he encourages students to explore the “predominant effect” of a text and the ideological forces shaping their reading (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).

6. Subverting Traditional Approaches in Advanced Exercises
As the semester progresses, Anderson introduces unconventional texts such as John Barth’s “Lost in the Funhouse” and Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, which challenge traditional reading expectations. These texts provoke discussions on reader assumptions and authorial intent, enabling students to reflect on “what it means to read and respond to literature” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).

7. Connecting Reader-Response Theory to Epistemology
Anderson frames reader-response theory as a theory of epistemology rather than criticism, arguing that it explains “how a reader makes knowledge about a text” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145). This approach bridges individual student responses with broader discussions of context and purpose in literary study.

By implementing reader-response theory, Anderson aims to transform introductory literature courses into spaces where students critically engage with texts, uncover ideological forces, and articulate meaningful interpretations. His rhetorical approach not only fosters deeper literary understanding but also equips students with skills to navigate complex texts and ideas.

1. Advancing Reader-Response Theory in Pedagogy

• Anderson highlights the practical application of reader-response theory in teaching, demonstrating how students’ personal biases, assumptions, and contexts influence their interpretations.
• “Reader-response is not actually a theory of literary criticism but a theory of epistemology: it explains a way that a reader makes knowledge about a text” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).

2. Integration of Rhetoric and Literary Theory

• By incorporating rhetorical principles into reader-response theory, Anderson emphasizes the contextual nature of discourse and its influence on interpretation.
• “To understand discourse, one must understand its context – a basic rhetorical principle” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).

3. Recognizing the Role of Ideological Forces in Reading

• Anderson connects Marxist and reader-response theories by exploring how ideological forces shape reading practices and reader assumptions.
• “Certain experiences are similar enough to create common frames of reference. Historically, it has been the assumption of these common frames of reference that has motivated pedagogical practices in the literature classroom” (Anderson, 1991, p. 143).

4. Expanding the Scope of Epistemological Inquiry in Literary Theory

• By framing reader-response as a form of epistemology, Anderson moves the discussion beyond criticism to explore how readers construct knowledge through textual engagement.
• “Reader-response is…a theory of epistemology: it explains a way that a reader makes knowledge about a text” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).

5. Challenging Traditional Literary Canon Pedagogy

• Anderson critiques traditional approaches to teaching literature, advocating for methods that validate students’ diverse interpretations and personal connections to texts.
• “It is useless, even counterproductive, to spend time telling students that comments of these types are inappropriate; rather we should get the students to articulate such responses and then move them to another level of analysis” (Anderson, 1991, p. 142).

6. Bridging Reader-Response with Post-Structuralist Concerns

• Anderson aligns with post-structuralist views by challenging the notion of fixed meanings in texts, emphasizing that interpretations vary based on individual readers’ contexts.
• “The ‘point’ of the story is to have an effect. Could we not say this about all stories: do not all texts have effects on their readers?” (Anderson, 1991, p. 143).

7. Encouraging Reflexivity in Literary Studies

• Anderson’s approach promotes reflexivity by urging students to examine how their cultural, historical, and personal experiences shape their understanding of texts.
• “I ask the class members to analyze both the text and themselves as sources of this effect” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).

8. Subverting Conventional Literary Theories

• Through the use of unconventional texts, Anderson demonstrates how reader-response theory can address narratives that defy traditional literary frameworks.
• “Texts that do not arouse typical responses…can still be addressed through a rhetorical approach” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).

1. Overemphasis on Subjectivity

• Critics may argue that Anderson’s approach risks prioritizing individual interpretations at the expense of textual analysis, potentially undermining the text’s inherent meaning or authorial intent.

2. Limited Scope for Canonical Frameworks

• By focusing on personal biases and experiences, Anderson’s method might de-emphasize traditional literary theories and historical or cultural contexts that are essential for comprehensive literary criticism.

3. Lack of Clear Evaluation Standards

• Anderson’s approach relies heavily on student responses, which could make it challenging to establish objective criteria for evaluating the quality or validity of their analyses.

4. Potential for Reinforcing Biases

• Encouraging students to explore their assumptions and biases might inadvertently validate or reinforce those biases, especially if students are not guided to critically examine and deconstruct them.

5. Insufficient Rigor for Advanced Study

• While effective for introductory courses, critics may find this approach too simplistic or reductive for more advanced literary studies, where deeper theoretical engagement is expected.

6. Risk of Reducing Texts to Reader Reactions

• By framing texts as catalysts for personal reactions, Anderson’s approach could be criticized for diminishing the broader aesthetic, historical, or philosophical significance of the works.

7. Overgeneralization of the Rhetorical Approach

• The rhetorical approach Anderson advocates may not be universally applicable to all texts, especially those that resist straightforward interpretation or rely heavily on intertextual or postmodern elements.

8. Potential to Overshadow Authorial Intent

• Anderson’s emphasis on the reader’s role might lead to neglecting the significance of authorial intent or the socio-historical forces that influenced the text’s creation.

1. Historical Foundations and Development of Reader-Response Theory

• The theory begins with influential figures such as Rosenblatt, Shklovsky, and Iser, evolving into modern empirical traditions involving cognitive and psychological methodologies (Richter, 2018, p. 9).
• Earlier philosophical contributions from Aristotle (Poetics) and Longinus (On the Sublime) laid groundwork emphasizing reader emotions like catharsis and aesthetic pleasure (Holub, 1984, p. 13).

2. Aristotle’s Contribution: Catharsis and Emotional Response

• Aristotle proposed that catharsis, achieved through tragedy, elicits emotions like pity and fear, stimulating intellectual and emotional purification (Aristotle, 2004, p. 64).
• His focus on language’s embellishments highlights the role of diction and metaphor in creating literary depth, paving the way for later reader-centric interpretations (Aristotle, 2004, p. 87).

3. Foregrounding and Defamiliarization

• Mukařovský and Shklovsky emphasized “foregrounding” as a technique to draw attention to poetic language, enhancing reader engagement through defamiliarization (Mukařovský, 1964, p. 10; Shklovsky, 1965, p. 9).
• These stylistic features challenge conventional reading patterns, prolonging perception and enriching the literary experience (Miall & Kuiken, 1994, p. 389).

4. Empirical Insights: Miall and Kuiken’s Study

• Empirical studies show readers spend more time on text segments rich in foregrounded features, confirming their cognitive and affective impact (Miall & Kuiken, 1994, p. 399).
• Judgments of “strikingness” and “feeling” are positively correlated with foregrounding, demonstrating its ability to shape reader responses (Miall & Kuiken, 1994, p. 401).

5. Neural Shakespeare and Functional Shifts

• Studies on Shakespeare’s linguistic innovations, like functional shifts (e.g., “lip” as a verb), reveal their capacity to create semantic surprise and challenge comprehension, reflected in distinct brain wave patterns (Thierry et al., 2008, p. 923).
• These effects suggest a biological basis for literary engagement, aligning reader responses with cognitive processes (Davis, 2007, p. 929).

6. Empirical Validation of Reader Agreement

• Martindale and Dailey’s analysis of I.A. Richards’ Practical Criticism reveals significant agreement among readers, challenging the assumption of interpretive subjectivity in literary texts (Martindale & Dailey, 1995, p. 303).
• Such findings suggest that literary texts possess inherent stability and elicit shared interpretative patterns, countering postmodern critiques of reader subjectivity (Richter, 2018, p. 117).

7. Literariness and Depth of Appreciation

• Bortolussi and Dixon introduced “depth of appreciation” as a measure of literary engagement, showing that readers discern literary quality through re-readings of texts like Borges’ Emma Zunz (Bortolussi & Dixon, 2003, p. 24).
• Literary texts foster deeper emotional and cognitive involvement compared to non-literary texts, underscoring the distinctiveness of literary experience (Richter, 2018, p. 124).

8. Broader Implications for Literary Studies

• The empirical tradition offers methods to study ordinary readers, bridging gaps between literary theory and everyday reading practices (de Beaugrande, 1985, p. 19).
• Key proposals include focusing on reader emotions, dehabituation through literature, and the experiential nature of reading (Miall, 2006, p. 2).

1. Establishing the Emotional Basis of Literary Engagement

• Miall underscores the role of emotions in shaping reader responses, building on Aristotle’s concept of catharsis, where emotions like pity and fear purify the reader (Aristotle, 2004, p. 64).
• He highlights how emotional transitions within a text (e.g., hubris, fear, pity) are integral to the architecture of literary works (Richter, 2018, p. 115).

2. Advancing Stylistic and Formalist Theories

• The theory emphasizes foregrounding and defamiliarization as key tools for slowing perception and enhancing engagement, supporting Russian Formalist principles (Mukařovský, 1964; Shklovsky, 1965, p. 9).
• Aristotle’s focus on metaphor as the “most important thing to master” aligns with this formalist emphasis on literary devices (Aristotle, 2004, p. 88).

3. Bridging Empirical and Interpretive Traditions

• By advocating for empirical studies of reader responses, Miall integrates cognitive and psychological approaches into literary theory, a divergence from purely interpretive frameworks (Richter, 2018, p. 9).
• His studies on foregrounding and its cognitive effects demonstrate a measurable interaction between textual features and reader perception (Miall & Kuiken, 1994, p. 399).

4. Challenging New Criticism’s Objective Focus

• Miall critiques the autonomy of the text as proposed by New Criticism, arguing that reader responses and interpretive variations enrich textual meaning (Richter, 2018, p. 117).
• This aligns with Hans Robert Jauss and Wolfgang Iser’s Reception Theory, which emphasizes the reader’s active role (Holub, 1984, p. 13).

5. Supporting Cognitive and Neuroaesthetic Theories

• The neural studies of Shakespearean functional shifts highlight the biological underpinnings of literary processing, contributing to neuroaesthetic frameworks (Thierry et al., 2008, p. 923).
• Findings on brain wave responses to stylistic features validate cognitive approaches to literature, linking form and comprehension (Davis, 2007, p. 929).

6. Enriching Reader-Response and Interpretive Communities

• Extending Stanley Fish’s interpretive community theory, Miall demonstrates how shared interpretive frameworks interact with individual emotional and cognitive responses (Fish, 1980).
• His empirical findings reveal patterns of agreement among readers, countering the postmodern critique of interpretive instability (Martindale & Dailey, 1995, p. 303).

7. Reinforcing the Concept of Literariness

• By developing tools like depth of appreciation, Miall quantifies the distinction between literary and non-literary texts, affirming the unique value of literary experience (Bortolussi & Dixon, 2003, p. 24).
• The emphasis on experiencing over interpreting repositions literature as a vehicle for personal and communal transformation (Miall, 2006, p. 2).

1. Overemphasis on Emotional Engagement

• Critics argue that the theory prioritizes emotional responses, potentially overlooking structural, historical, and cultural contexts of literary works.

2. Limited Generalizability of Empirical Findings

• The empirical studies cited by Miall often involve small, homogenous sample groups (e.g., students), limiting the applicability of results to diverse reader populations.

3. Downplaying the Role of Authorial Intent

• By focusing on the reader’s experience, the theory may neglect the significance of the author’s purpose and the historical context in shaping a text’s meaning.

4. Potential for Subjective Interpretations

• Opponents suggest that reader-response theory risks endorsing overly subjective readings, as different readers bring unique experiences and biases to their interpretations.

5. Simplification of Complex Literary Dynamics

• Critics claim the theory reduces the richness of literary texts to measurable elements like foregrounding or emotional reactions, neglecting their broader aesthetic and philosophical dimensions.

6. Resistance from Traditional Theorists

• Scholars aligned with New Criticism and Formalism argue that Miall’s approach undermines the intrinsic value and stability of the text itself.

7. Challenges in Bridging Empirical and Literary Studies

• The integration of scientific methodologies into literary analysis faces skepticism, as some critics question the compatibility of empirical data with interpretative disciplines.

8. Overemphasis on Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms

• Neuroaesthetic components, such as brain wave studies, are seen as reductive, potentially sidelining the cultural and symbolic layers of literary experience.

Resistance to Modern Literary Theory

• Modern literary theory faced resistance, particularly in Cambridge, where traditional literary studies favored “principles not theory” over abstract systematization (Heath, 1988, p. 36).
• Critics like F.R. Leavis emphasized the moral and emotional engagement with literature, rejecting theoretical abstraction as alienating the literary experience (Heath, 1988, p. 36).

Derrida’s Deconstruction and the Force of Textuality

• Derrida’s deconstruction rejects fixed meanings, proposing “there is no outside-text,” emphasizing the immanence of language and textuality (Heath, 1988, p. 37).
• Deconstruction positions textuality as a dynamic force, privileging the literary over philosophical or systemic reading, creating “knowledge in reading” (Heath, 1988, p. 37).

The Academic Success of Deconstruction

• Deconstruction gained traction due to its focus on textuality and its challenge to all systems of representation, including philosophy and history (Heath, 1988, p. 37).
• Its methods emphasize “the careful teasing out of the warring forces of signification within the text” (Heath, 1988, p. 37).

Contrasts with Other Theories

• Lacanian psychoanalytic criticism focuses on the “primacy of the signifier,” emphasizing unconscious desire and sexual difference, separating itself from deconstruction’s anti-systematic stance (Heath, 1988, p. 38).
• Deconstruction resists fixed truths, unlike other theories that maintain some distance between theory and object (Heath, 1988, p. 38).

Representation and Political Dimensions

• Representation, both literary and political, is a key concern. Deconstruction reframes it as the production, rather than reflection, of reality, challenging stable identities and truths (Heath, 1988, p. 46).
• This creates tension with traditional notions of identity in political and literary representation, particularly in postcolonial and feminist contexts (Heath, 1988, p. 46-47).

Deconstruction and Ideology

• Heath critiques the marginalization of ideology in modern theory, noting its absence in key works like Jonathan Culler’s On Deconstruction (Heath, 1988, p. 42).
• Postmodernism often replaces ideological critique with the multiplicity of narratives, undermining emancipatory political discourse (Heath, 1988, p. 42).

Intersection with Feminism and Postcolonial Studies

• Deconstruction informs feminist and postcolonial critiques, as seen in Gayatri Spivak’s work, which interrogates colonial and gendered discourses (Heath, 1988, p. 44).
• However, tensions arise when deconstruction’s emphasis on multiplicity conflicts with activist goals for social change (Heath, 1988, p. 44).

The Crisis in Literary Studies

• Modern literary theory challenges the “essence” of literature, dissolving boundaries between literary and non-literary texts, emphasizing textuality and indeterminacy (Heath, 1988, p. 47).
• Literature becomes a site for interrogating representation, language, and socio-historical identity (Heath, 1988, p. 47-48).

Reimagining Literature in Use

• Heath advocates for a critical theory engaging with the “writing and reading of the struggle for representation,” integrating textuality with social realities (Heath, 1988, p. 48).
• This approach aligns with Brecht’s call for theory to transform finished works into ongoing critical inquiries (Heath, 1988, p. 49).

1. Advancement of Deconstruction

• Exploration of Textuality: Heath highlights Derrida’s notion of “generalized textuality” as central to deconstruction, emphasizing the immanence of language and the absence of fixed reference points (p. 37).
• Challenge to Canonical Assumptions: Deconstruction’s focus on “force and signification” destabilizes traditional readings of the canon, redefining the literary text as an open field of interpretation (p. 37).
• Contribution to Epistemological Critique: Heath underscores how deconstruction addresses “epistemological insecurity,” questioning the foundations of knowledge and interpretive systems (p. 39).

2. Intersection with Psychoanalytic Theory

• Primacy of the Signifier: Heath links Lacanian psychoanalytic criticism to literary theory through its emphasis on the role of language in shaping subjectivity (p. 38).
• Unconscious Desire and Literature: Psychoanalytic theory positions literature as a site for exploring unconscious drives and the symbolic constitution of identity, diverging from deconstruction’s anti-systematic approach (p. 38).

3. Reframing Representation

• Production of Reality: Heath critiques traditional notions of representation, reframing it through deconstruction as a creative process that generates reality rather than reflecting it (p. 46).
• Application to Political and Social Identities: The study connects literary theory to broader socio-political struggles, including feminist and postcolonial critiques of representation (p. 46).

4. Critique of Canon and Ideology

• Resistance to Canonical Authority: Heath critiques the canonical focus on “principles not theory,” advocating for a dynamic approach that interrogates the ideological assumptions of literary tradition (p. 36).
• Return to Ideology: Despite its marginalization in postmodern discourse, Heath reasserts the importance of ideology in understanding the political stakes of literary texts (p. 42).

5. Integration with Feminist Critique

• Feminist Deconstruction: Heath highlights Spivak’s work in applying deconstruction to feminist theory, exploring intersections of colonial and patriarchal discourses (p. 44).
• Gendered Voices: Deconstruction raises critical questions about the multiplicity of voices in feminist and gender studies, interrogating the politics of identity and difference (p. 44).

6. Romanticism and Modernism in Literary Theory

• Privileging Romantic Texts: Romantic literature becomes a focal point in deconstruction for exploring themes of identity, subjectivity, and the impossibility of unity (p. 40).
• Modernism and Language: Heath situates modernism as a continuation of Romanticism’s engagement with the problem of language and the materiality of literary forms (p. 41).

7. Contributions to Postcolonial Criticism

• Literary Representation and Colonialism: Heath integrates the political realities of postcolonial literature, as seen in works like Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s Petals of Blood, into the broader framework of literary theory (p. 46).
• Critique of Neo-Colonialism: Heath critiques the imperialist underpinnings of canonical literature syllabi, emphasizing the need for alternative, localized literatures in academic discourse (p. 44).

8. Reconceptualization of Literary Studies

• Literature in Use: Heath proposes a reconceptualization of literary studies that integrates literature’s socio-political dimensions with textuality and representation (p. 48).
• Non-Representative Representation: Literary theory is reframed as a tool for exploring collective identities and participatory forms of representation (p. 49).

1. Complexity and Accessibility

• The dense theoretical language and abstract concepts in Heath’s work can be challenging for readers unfamiliar with modern literary theory.
• Critics argue that this creates a barrier to understanding and alienates broader audiences who might benefit from engaging with these ideas.

2. Overemphasis on Deconstruction

• Heath heavily emphasizes Derrida’s deconstruction, potentially marginalizing other theoretical frameworks, such as Marxist or feminist approaches, in their full depth.
• Critics suggest this focus overshadows other significant contributions to modern literary theory, reducing its diversity (p. 37).

3. Marginalization of Ideology

• While Heath critiques the neglect of ideology in contemporary theory, some argue that his work itself does not fully reintegrate ideology into his discussions, leading to an incomplete critique (p. 42).
• This omission undermines the political dimension of literary theory in addressing systemic inequalities and social struggles.

4. Ambiguity in Practical Application

• Critics note that Heath’s theoretical approach provides limited guidance on applying these ideas practically to literary criticism or pedagogy.
• The emphasis on textuality and representation is seen as abstract, leaving questions about how to evaluate texts within specific cultural or historical contexts.

5. Eurocentrism in Literary Focus

• Heath’s reliance on canonical and European works, such as Wordsworth, Shelley, and Joyce, has been critiqued for perpetuating Eurocentric biases in literary theory.
• Postcolonial scholars argue that this focus marginalizes non-Western literatures, even when critiquing colonial ideologies (p. 44).

6. Tensions with Feminist and Activist Goals

• Some feminist critics contend that deconstruction’s emphasis on multiplicity and textuality undermines actionable goals for gender equality and social justice.
• Heath’s exploration of this tension, while insightful, does not fully resolve the contradictions between theory and activism (p. 44).

7. Abstract Treatment of Representation

• Heath’s reframing of representation as the production of reality is criticized for abstracting from the lived experiences of marginalized groups.
• Critics argue that this approach risks minimizing the tangible political and cultural stakes of representation in literature and media (p. 46).

8. Lack of Focus on Material Conditions

• Heath’s work, like much of deconstructive theory, has been criticized for insufficiently addressing the material and economic conditions shaping literature and literary studies.
• This omission limits its relevance to broader socio-political critiques and applications.

Overview of Chaos and Poststructuralism’s Intersection

• Hayles explores the interplay between poststructuralism and chaos theory, illustrating how both disciplines challenge traditional boundaries by embracing uncertainty and indeterminacy. This shift marks a cultural reevaluation of chaos, altering perceptions in both literature and science (Hayles, Chaos Bound).

Deconstruction and Chaos Theory: Shared Premises

• Both poststructuralism and chaos theory disrupt classical systems, emphasizing complexity over simplicity. Deconstruction in literature exposes texts to infinite interpretations, analogous to chaos theory’s breaching of orderly predictability in scientific systems (Hayles, p. 175).
• Jacques Derrida’s concept of “différance,” blending notions of deferral and difference, parallels scientific views of chaos as a creative force that generates new forms (Hayles, p. 179).

Iterative Methodologies: Literature and Science

• Hayles identifies iterative processes as a key methodological similarity between deconstruction and chaos theory. Just as scientific iteration magnifies uncertainties to reveal chaos, Derrida’s deconstruction uses textual repetition to uncover fissures in meaning (Hayles, p. 183).
• The iterative fold, a shared concept in both disciplines, underscores the unpredictable outcomes arising from initial uncertainties (Hayles, p. 184).

Ecological Framework of Ideas

• Hayles proposes an “ecology of ideas,” linking poststructuralist and scientific methods as responses to shared cultural conditions. This framework reveals the mutual influence of cultural shifts on both fields (Hayles, p. 177).
• Despite shared premises, their evaluative goals differ: scientists view chaos as generative, forming order, while poststructuralists use chaos to deconstruct order and expose inherent biases (Hayles, p. 178).

Economic Dynamics and Disciplinary Infrastructures

• Hayles contrasts the conservatism of scientific practices with the radical subversions of poststructuralist critiques. She argues that institutional and economic structures shape these responses to chaos, perpetuating disciplinary traditions (Hayles, p. 187).
• Roland Barthes’s S/Z exemplifies poststructuralist expansion of meaning through “noise,” contrasting with the economization of information seen in Shannon’s communication theory (Hayles, p. 188).

Michel Serres and the Concept of Equivocation

• Hayles highlights Michel Serres’s work as a synthesis of science and literature, focusing on equivocation—how “noise” in communication channels can simultaneously add and obscure information (Hayles, p. 196).
• Serres’s interdisciplinary approach reveals tensions between local and global perspectives, using concepts like the spiral to mediate between order and disorder (Hayles, p. 202).

Poststructuralism’s Challenge to Logocentrism

• Hayles connects Derrida’s grammatology with chaos theory, emphasizing the destabilization of traditional hierarchies such as speech over writing. Both frameworks reject fixed origins, proposing instead a perpetual interplay of difference (Hayles, p. 179).

Concluding Vision: Literature and Science as Intersecting Discourses

• Hayles concludes that poststructuralist and scientific discourses, though distinct, are shaped by a shared cultural reevaluation of chaos. Their interplay reflects the broader dynamics of postmodern thought, dissolving rigid disciplinary boundaries (Hayles, p. 207).