graduate methods course - are you teaching 601 next semester?

Nope. This is just a hypothetical.

Oh. Hypotheticals I only do over coffee... Mayorga soon?

In terms of examples, I think that's a really tough question, since we have such a hard time even figuring out *what* someone should know - from what *should* be in the canon, to whether or not we should *have* a canon, to discussions like the recent "should artists program" question over at GrandTextAuto.

As to the broader question of how we construct "what we know," I suppose I would break it down (in an admittedly crude fashion) to _factual_ (less subjective: "Holden was the main character's name in Catcher in the Rye"), _conceptual_ (more subjective: "the development of Marxist theory is as follows ... "), and _argumentative_ (perhaps the most subjective, since we measure the quality of work by standards including informed arguments supplemented by conceptual frameworks, with the added flourish of personal rhetorical style and argumentative prowess). A possible example might be the narratologist/ludology debate – including the articles, but also the (often very articulate) conversations on blogs, listservs, and message boards.

There are, of course, factors of race, gender, social position, familiarity, and so on to consider when evaluating argumentative merit (which is to say, these factors can come into play during the evaluative process, either consciously or subconsciously). Ultimately, I think I just ended up talking more about cultural capital, which is probably not the issue you were looking to address.

But I still want to get coffee ;)

How about Freud and the shift from the seduction theory (suggesting that one of the causes of female neurosis was sexual abuse at the hands of a male relative) to the insistence that such claims were just fantasy on the part of the patient?

KF, does the controversy over seduction theory play out in a fairly concentrated and self-contained way in secondary literature? Basically, what I mean by "case study" are instances where I could give students a set of articles (or whatever), and let them follow the scholarly thrust and parry from one publication to the next.

Mmm. Good question. I know that a number of feminist responses to Freud took clear issue with the shift, but I don't remember whether there were counter-arguments that supported him or not. I'll do a little poking back through the literature and get back to you.

Actually, now that I've had a chance to think about it ... there's this fascinating back and forth between Frederic Jameson and Aijaz Ahmed about the concept of 'national allegories'. I think the 'argument' lasts only 3 essays - Jameson's first, followed by Ahmed's critique, followed by Jameson's rebuttal. A really amazing exchange, if I recall correctly, and certainly do-able for one (hypothetical) seminar session.

I believe the reference that started it off: Frederic Jameson, 'Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism' Social Text 15 (1986) 65-88

followed by:
Aijaz Ahmad, "Jameson's Rhetoric of Otherness and the 'National Allegory," from In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures (London and New York: Verso, 1992).

and then there's Jameson' rebuttal... but I don't remember what it's called/where it is offhand. I can dig it up from my files at home if you are interested.

I'm thinking of the debate (which raged, relatively speaking, in the 70s) over the staging of the York Corpus Christi play... the mansuscript is 12 hours long, and the plays were each performed 12 times over a span of about 20 hours. Here's more: York Staging Controversy. http://jerz.setonhill.edu/resources/PSim/staging1.html

How about debates over authorship attribution? A prime (and high-profile) example would be Donald Foster attributing "A Funerall Elegye" to Shakespeare and then later retracting that attribution.

Ah, that's a great one.