kits. Third, social and literary theory has profoundly transformed
their understanding of representations, as manifested in variants
ranging from Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytical, and structuralist
to post-structuralist theories. These changes have led scholars to
value “smart” and “interesting” work over the “sound” and “rigor-
ous” studies that were most praised in earlier decades.^31
One result of these changes is that literature proposals are less
competitive than they once were, particularly as compared to those
submitted by historians (the latter garner and are perceived as gar-
nering, the lion’s share of humanities fellowships). The disciplinary
broadening and diversification of criteria of evaluation may have
led to a deprofessionalization that puts literary scholars in a vulnera-
ble position when competing on theoretical or historical grounds
with scholars whose disciplines “own” such terrains. Cognitive con-
textualization may be the link between “deprofessionalization” and
decreasing awards. To judge a proposal on the basis of the criteria
most appropriate to the applicant’s discipline requires that panelists
have a sense of what such criteria would be. In disciplines like En-
glish, where a laundry list of criteria might arguably be applied, pan-
elists are much freer to choose their evaluative criteria as they see fit.
So if a literary studies proposal makes much of its reliance on or ex-
pansion of work in history, this might prompt a panelist to apply cri-
teria appropriate to the discipline of history rather than of English,
and convince others to do so as well (a task made easier by the fact
that there is little consensus within the discipline). An English pro-
fessor recalls:
At one point somebody said, “Gosh, we’ve giving all the awards to
historians.” And I remember thinking, “That’s not surprising.”
There’s an almost complete disappearance of literary proposals.
English professors don’t write literary proposals anymore. And
when they do, they don’t hold up very well...Whydopeoplenot
writethem?...[O]ne reason is that literary critics themselvesOn Disciplinary Cultures / 73