In The Employment of English: Theory, Jobs, and the Future of Literary Studies, literary scholar Michael Berube writes that "[b]y formally bringing together, through zero-time appointments, faculty members from disciplines engaged in some degree by theorized recursivity," the Unit for Criticism "has helped produce dialogue spoken in a kind of esperanto based in shared hermeneutic practices," performing an important interdisciplinary function within the university.[3][4] Although some criticized the books for being excessively theoretical and for what Terry Eagleton, in a review of Cultural Studies, called the “anything-goes-ism”[5] of cultural studies, they provoked discussion about the nature of interdisciplinary work in the humanities and social sciences. Hayden White called Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture a "major event in the discourse of cultural criticism of our time,"[6] Timothy Brennan noted that Marxism was “already featured on the reading lists of cultural studies seminars across the country,” [7] and Kristine L. Fitch wrote of Cultural Studies that “As an inquisitive stance from which to conduct research into a complex world of human beings and human problems, the book has a great deal to offer even when one does not entirely buy (as I do not) what cultural studies scholars do or how they do it.” [8]
Conferences
Mad World: Sex, Politics, Style and the 1960s (2010)[9]
^Berube, Michael, The Employment of English: Theory, Jobs, and the Future of Literary Studies, New York University Press, 1998, p. 196
^Harrison, Brady (2009), "Empire and the Anxiety of Influence", in Rothberg, Michael and Peter K. Garrett (ed.), Cary Nelson and the Struggle for the University, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 195–197
^Eagleton, Terry (18 December 1992). “Proust, punk, or both.” Times Literary Supplement, pp. 5-6.
