The Ten-Minute Introduction: A Short History of GEMCS

JEMCS1.1 (Spring/ Summer2001) The Ten-Minute Introduction: A ShortHistoryofGEMCS RobertMarkley first meeting oftheGroup for Early Modern Cultural Studies in 1993featured a roundtable discussion on theaims, purposes, and future ofan ad hocgathering ofgraduate students ,assistantprofessors, and a handful offortysomething tenured radicals. Sandwiched between short presentations by someofthemeeting's organizers - myself, Lennard Davis,Pat Gill,TomDiPiero, JamesThompson, and RajaniSudan - Ann Jennalie Cookoutlined thedecisions thatthe"members" ofthis fledgling group would faceintransforming itintoa professional, rule-bound society: drafting a constitution; settling on proceduresfor electing officers; finding an institution tohosta centraloffice ; paying for secretaries, mailing costs,andtheprinting ofa newsletter; deciding ona dues structure; choosing editors for a journaltolegitimize ourscholarly aspirations; and so on. Thefuture, sheindicated, hadalready beenwritten: theGroup for Early Modern Cultural Studies would havetobecome a "professional " organization rather thanremain aninsurgent "group." Eight yearslater, evenas wehavebecome a bastion ofacademic respectability and theimpetus fora newjournal,GEMCSremainsnota "society" buta four tofive hundred participant road showthatreinvents itself every yearwithout dues,central offices , ornewsletters.1 Oneoftheironies ofsuccess:evenas the first issueoftheJournal forEarly Modern Cultural Studiesconfirms theprominence ofcultural studieswithin medieval, Renaissance , andeighteenthandnineteenth -century scholarship, italso represents theseduction ofscholarly authority - an authority that, from itsinception, GEMCShas sought toredefine. GEMCShaditsorigin, inpart,ina widespread dissatisfactionwiththeprocedural complications, unrealistic quorum counts, andinsider nominating committees that hampered genu- vi TheJournal forEarlyModern Cultural Studies1.1 ine reform in organizationssuch as the AmericanSocietyfor EighteenthCentury Studiesand theModernLanguageAssociation . The formal trappingsofdemocracy in such organizations seemed,to many,to discouragetheinnovative approachesthat theculturalcritiques ofthe1980sandearly1990soffered. When notovertly hostiletofeminist and theoretical approachestothe earlymodernperiod,conventional scholarlyorganizations had troubleovercoming inertialresistanceto thechanges - intellectual and institutional - whichweretakingplace in the profession . Fromourperspective, thedivisionsand subdivisionsthat parsed scholarshipbydiscipline,nationalboundaries,and historical periods oftenfrustrated productiveexchanges among scholarsworking indifferent fields.Although committed tobringing the insightsofculturalstudies to earlymoderntexts,the first GEMCS meetings, in thisrespect,exhibited less a consensus on an approachorsetofapproachesthana complexrevaluationoftherelationships betweentextand whathad beencalled "context."Attheriskofsimplifying, culturalstudiesoffers an ongoingrevaluationofthelinguistically-based critiquesoffered bythe new historicism, the "new"eighteenth century, and the first-wave interdisciplinarity that had led to the foundingof ASECS in the 1960s. In an important sense, GEMCS has tried to make the formsofcriticalexchangeembodythe critiques feminist and materialist - thatserveas thecontent ofitsseveral hundredannual presentations.The prominent rolesthatmany GEMCS regularsplayin older,moreestablishedorganizations suggeststhe extenttowhichculturalstudieshas helpedto reshape thescholarshipoftheearlymodernperiod. Atthisjuncture,itmayseemas thoughI shouldlaunchinto an overview ofearlymodern culturalstudies - surveying thefield, takingstockofwhathas beendone,and outlining thescopeand intentionsofour newjournal. But I have recently done that, and mostofyouwillread thearticlesthatfollow thisbrief history ;theycan enact farmoreeffectively than I can describe.2 Ratherthan tryto take a snapshotofa dynamicand evolving field,then,I wantto suggestthatthesignificance ofGEMCS in the 1990s has stemmedfromits collectiverefusalto knuckle downand bureaucratize, from itsongoing redefinition ofwhata conference - and ofwhat scholarlyexchangemoregenerally shouldbe . Although no oneevernailedthesestothedoorofthechurch, wedecidedbefore thefirst GEMCS meeting had takenplace that wedidnotwanttobe another"organization" performing therituals of surrogationwhich would both threaten and seek to Markley vii reembody stodgier predecessors.3In providing avenue forfeminist ,materialist, and postdisciplinary challengesto thecritical traditions ofthesixtiesand seventies,GEMCS offered an alternativeto the veryformof scholarlyconferences:the twentyminutepaperthatrunsoveritsallottedtimelimit ;therushedor nonexistent questionperiod;the recycledplenaryaddress; the rubber-chicken businessluncheon;and thefinancialreportsby harriedacademicsturnedlow-level, Dickensianclerks. To start, GEMCS insistedon theProcrustean twelve - and then,by 1996, ten-minute ruleforall papers - toforcepresenters tolop off the unessential,the longquotationfromothercritics,the minute analysisofa textthatfewhave read,and pose questionsrather than declaimanswers. Whileprobablya majority ofsessions overtheyearshave featured scholarly paperswitha beginning, a middle,and an end, therehave been significant numbersof free-form, open-ended discussionsontopicsranging from teaching ,to publishing,to community outreachand activism. The result,I think, has beenan evolution inthewaysinwhichmany ofus thinkaboutourwork.Cometothinkofit,maybeitis time fora fewthesesthatask us torethink therelationship between the"content" ofscholarly endeavorand the"form" inwhichitis presentedand evaluated. One: Wecan rethink intellectual endeavorbyemphasizing stochasticformsoforganization . Fromthestart,GEMCS has operatedon collective, voluntary labor. Thefirst conference in Oklahoma was a groupeffort (RickBarneyand RonaldSchleiferin Norman;LennyDavis settingup the bank accounts, and two hundredabstractsspreadout overmylivingflooras I cobbled together thefirst draftoftheprogram).Each subsequentconferencehas dependedon the efforts ofindividualsto organize the meetings,oftenwithminimalinstitutionalsupport - Tom DiPiero (Rochester 1994), Rajani Sudan (Dallas 1995), Bob Markley(Pittsburgh 1996), JamesThompson(Raleigh -Durham 1997),JeanMarsden(Newport 1998),LisaBlansett(Miami1999), andTomDiPiero, PatGill,andRajaniSudan (NewOrleans2000)and a program committee thathas includedall oftheabove and a core ofdedicatedgraduatestudents,some ofwhomsuch as NancyAtkinson and GwenGorzelsky havegoneon tobigger and betterpayingthings . As theannual conference grewfrom150 participants at thefirst meeting in 1993 toover400 bythe 1996 meetingin Pittsburgh, we have demonstrated thatwe can talk overideas, try outten-minute versionsoflargerarguments, and socializewithoutthetwo-hundred-plus-dollar buy-inneeded to attendconferences...