ASECS at 50: Interview with Kevin Joel Berland
Buy Issue for $25 at JHUP- ASECS at 50:Interview with Kevin Joel Berland
Kevin Joel Berland is Professor Emeritus of English and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. Berland's contribution to eighteenth-century studies is both prolific and profound. His research focuses on early modern intellectual history and literature, yet he has also produced distinguished scholarship on diverse aspects of the literature and culture of the long eighteenth century. The vast scope of his intellectual interests encompasses a dazzling array of areas of study, from physiology, physiognomy, and poetry, to Orientalism, travel writing, and Irish print culture. His most recent publications center upon colonial North America, with his scholarly edition of The Dividing Line Histories of William Byrd II of Westover (2013) garnering high praise for its innovation, integrity, and rigor.
Within ASECS, however, Berland is as esteemed for his academic mentorship and support as he is respected for his scholarly achievements. Alongside many other professional distinctions, in 1993 the Society presented him with a special award acknowledging his pioneering work in the digital humanities. C18-L, the international online forum he founded in 1990, remains a vital virtual community within eighteenth-century studies. A former president of East-Central ASECS (EC/ASECS), Berland continues to contribute generously to the scholarly community not only through his editorial roles with Eighteenth-Century Life and Literary Compass, but also through mentoring activities, including his participation in the hugely popular "The Doctor is In" mentoring sessions at the annual Society meetings.
Given this year commemorates the 50th anniversary of ASECS, I would like to begin this interview by asking you about your earliest memories of [End Page 539] the organization. When did you first become involved in ASECS and what are your most noteworthy recollections of those early days of participation?
Like many ASECS members, I entered the Society through a regional group—in my case, EC/ASECS. I attended my first regional meeting the year after starting my job at Penn State, and my first ASECS presentation was in the EC/ASECS panel at an ASECS conference, as most regional groups offer a less imposing environment for graduate students and junior scholars. It seems to me, however, that it is much easier for junior scholars to get space on the conference program than it once was, perhaps because people are more prepared and doing scholarship much earlier in their careers. At its best, ASECS provides a space for testing ideas and critical approaches in a community of common interests, as well as support for individuals' sense of themselves as participants in the exchange of ideas. Networking is another key function of ASECS; I know many ASECS members who have gained opportunities for research, conference participation, and publishing through connections made at ASECS meetings, including regional meetings. This factor is exceedingly important for faculty not teaching in their major field; the number of eighteenth-century jobs is limited, and many excellent new Ph.D.s cannot find tenure-track positions in their field, so many wind up in positions teaching composition or as generalists in undergraduate courses. Separated from the dynamic exchange of ideas in graduate school, new faculty need to keep their scholarly minds alive. This was certainly my case as an entry-level faculty member, and, years later, I still benefit from conversations and suggestions from practically every conference I've attended. I have always left ASECS conferences on fire with enthusiasm for the ideas I've absorbed and the possibilities for my own scholarship.
As a longstanding participant of ASECS, what do you consider as the Society's most important contribution(s) to the field of eighteenth-century studies? How has the Society influenced the trajectory and agenda of eighteenth-century studies in the United States and beyond?
Perhaps it was only a subjective view on my part, but when I started coming to ASECS conferences in the 1980s, it seemed that a sizeable majority of members—and conference panels—focused on literary studies, and especially on canonical English/British literature. But it was also a time in which female authors were being "rediscovered" and the (practically) all...
