CRITICAL THINKING

This course is part of the Master's degree program in Comparative International Relations and the Master's degree program in American, European, and Postcolonial Languages and Cultures. In line with the objectives of both degrees, the course aims to refine linguistic and cultural knowledge in English, fostering a secure mastery of the language; to develop the ability to critically analyze and read texts of various kinds; to promote the interdisciplinary construction of knowledge and conscious participation in debate; and to conduct research that results in an academic paper that conforms to the standards of the international academic community.

The chosen theme to achieve these objectives is the figure of the Public Intellectual. Does this figure exist? If so, how can it be described? How did this figure emerge in the past? Why? How can we recognize this figure in the present? In our course, we will address these and other related questions. At the same time, we will use these questions to illuminate an exciting period in American cultural, literary, and political history, the period from the mid-20th century onwards. It is the moment when New York City emerges as a new center for the artistic avant-garde and as a cultural and creative hub, with the great figures of European Jewish refugees such as Hannah Arendt and Susan Taubes, and innovative voices like that of Susan Sontag (1933-2004), among others.

Before arriving at this exciting historical period and, from there, to the present, we will frame our course by identifying some models of the Public Intellectual whose influence is trans-historical and trans-cultural. In the first part of the course, we will examine Antigone, Saint Paul (Paul of Tarsus), and James Joyce's Stephen Dedalus as models of what Julia Kristeva has defined in our era as the "dissident" intellectual. In the case of Antigone and Paul, we will see how they have been updated by contemporary thinkers (Judith Butler and Alain Badiou) and draw from the encounter with these two universal figures some of the theoretical tools for our inquiry. We will then move to mid-20th-century New York, with the figures of great women thinkers like Arendt, Sontag, and Taubes, to arrive at the present day and address critical thinking on race (Afropessimism) and, finally, thinkers on the post-traumatic subject who are particularly influential in the Anglophone world (Catherine Malabou and Slavoj Žižek).

Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to:

(knowledge and understanding)
• encounter, interpret, and appreciate the work of American thinkers and develop an affirmative understanding of the critical attitude
• understand reading, writing, and thinking as interconnected activities
• recognize the distinctive aims and features academic critical writing
• grasp and develop connections among different authors, and understand their contribution to a scholarly conversation

(knowledge application and problem solving)
• identify an important issue or a question independently
• engage in all stages of independent library research, research an issue or a question by working in the library, navigating library databases, identifying relevant scholarship, and assessing its quality
• apply and develop knowledge of the conventions of academic writing, ranging from structure and paragraphing to tone and mechanics, and be aware of these conventions

(handling complexity and formulating judgements)

• map the scholarly conversation around a controversial or important issue
• produce academic texts of increasing length, and entering the scholarly conversation around a controversial or important issue, articulating a position and making an argument supported by evidence
• develop a sophisticated awareness of context and audience


(communication skills)
• summarize, paraphrase complex texts, grasping their arguments and relaying them to an audience of peers and for the purposes of responding to them in writing
• participate in a debate presenting a position and offering a contribution
• actively engage in peer-to-peer collaboration in discussing texts, orchestrating a public debate, offering feedback to the work of others

(learning skills)
• master argumentative skills
• summarize, paraphrase, and quote from sources using the MLA documentation style
• revise for style and edit for features such as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling
• take notes
• compile a bibliography of relevant sources
• formulate a research proposal

A B2 level of competences in English

Proposed weekly schedule

1. Introduction to the course: The Public Intellectual, an Open Debate
2. Antigone
3. Feminist readings of Antigone for our time
4. Paul, Our Contemporary
5. Roundtable 1: Cross-temporal models of the public intellectual
6. Joyce's Stephen
7. Susan Taubes
8. Roundtable 2: Susan Taubes
9. Hannah Arendt and the space of appearance
10. Roundtable 3: Women Public Intellectuals (Sontag/Taubes/Arendt)
11. Later Sontag: Regarding the Pain of Others
13. Psychoanalysis, race, and the public intellectual: the case of Afro-pessimism
14. Destruction and the “New Wounded”: Catherine Malabou and Slavoj Žižek
15. Roundtable 4: Does the Public Intellectual Exist?

Required texts:

Julia Kristeva, “A New Type of Intellectual: The Dissident.” Trans. Seán Hand. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. 292–300. Moodle
Sophocles, Antigone. Trans. Robert Fagles. Penguin Classics, 2015. Print: Libreria Cafoscarina.
Paul, “The Second Letter to the Thessalonians.” The Bible, English Standard Version-ESV and King James Version – KJV). Moodle
Badiou, Alain, “Who is Paul?” from Saint Paul. The Foundation of Universalism. Trans. Ray Brassier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. 16-30. Moodle
Pier Paolo Pasolini, St. Paul: A Screenplay. Trans. Elizabeth A. Castelli. London: Verso, 2014. Moodle.
Adriana Cavarero, “On the Body of Antigone.” In Feminist Readings of Antigone. Ed. Fanny Soderback. New York: State University of New York Press, 2010. 45-63. To read: pp. 45-55, and Conclusion: 59-60. Moodle.
Judith Butler, “Promiscuous Obedience.” In Feminist Readings of Antigone. Ed. Fanny Soderback. New York: State University of New York Press, 2010. To read: pp. 45-55, and Conclusion: 59-60. Moodle.
Arendt, Hannah, “The Public Realm: The Common,” and “Power and the Space of Appearance,” and “Homo Faber and the Space of Appearance.” The Human Condition. Intro. Margaret Canovan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. 50-57; 199-212. Moodle
Susan Taubes, Divorcing. Introd. David Rieff. (New York: NYRB Classics, 2020). Print: Libreria Cafoscarina
S. Sontag, “Notes on Camp.” Against Interpretation. New York: Picador, 2001. 275-292. Moodle
Susan Sontag, “Against Interpretation.” Against Interpretation. New York: Picador, 2001. First ed. 1966. 3-14. Moodle
S. Sontag, “Debriefing.” I, etcetera. New York: Picador, 2002. 33-52. Moodle
Susan Sontag, “Under the Sign of Saturn.” Under the Sign of Saturn. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing, 1983. First published 1980. 109-134. Moodle
S. Sontag, Regarding the Pain of Others. Penguin, 2003. Print: Libreria Cafoscarina
Edward Said, “Speaking Truth to Power.” Representations of the Intellectual. New York: Vintage, 1996. 85-102. Moodle
Marriot, David S. Lacan Noir: Lacan and Afro-pessimism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2021. 120-134. Moodle
Catherine Malabou, “Souffrance cérébrale, souffrance psychique et plasticité. Études, 414.4 (2011): 487-498. Moodle
Slavoj Žižek “Descartes and the Post-Traumatic Subject: On Catherine Malabou's Les nouveaux blessés and Other Autistic Monsters.” Qui Parle, 17.2 (Spring-Summer 2009): 23-147. Moodle.

Suggested readings:
arbara Ching, “‘Not Even a New Yorker’”: Susan Sontag in America.” The Scandal of
Susan Sontag. Eds. Barbara Ching and Jennifer A. Wagner-Lawlor. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. 52-77. Moodle
Michel Foucault, “What is Critique?” The Politics of Truth. Trans. Lysa Hochroth and Catherine Porter. Ed. Sylvère Lotringer. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007. 41-81. Moodle
bell hooks, “Intellectual Life.” Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. Taylor & Francis Group, 2009. Moodle
Mena Mitrano, “The Public Intellectual.” In the Archive of Longing: Susan Sontag’s Critical Modernism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016. 50-67. (Moodle)
Mena Mitrano, “What is Critique? Three Types of Indocility.” Literary Critique, Modernism and the Transformation of Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2022. 46-67.
Susan Sontag, “Against Interpretation.” Against Interpretation. New York: Picador, 2001. First ed. 1966. 3-14. Moodle
S. Sontag, “Trip to Hanoi.” Styles of Radical Will. New York: Picador, 2002. 205-274. Moodle
S. Sontag, “Fascinating Fascism.” Under the Sign of Saturn. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing, 1983. First published 1980. 73-105. Moodle
Susan Sontag, “Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo.” Where the Stress Falls. New York: Vintage, 20

The final grade will be the result of the following:
• A final research essay
• An oral exam

The oral exam will last 30 minutes and will take the form of a conversation. The goal of the conversation is to build on the issues emerging from the individual student's research work. The exam will aim to assess the following abilities: 1) the ability to read, understand, and comment on a text, with particular attention to its language; 2) analytical skills, connecting texts and ideas and/or authors; 3) the ability to present and discuss the results of one's research, engaging in conversation with the existing critical literature on the issue or topic of the individual research.

The final essay will be the outcome of an individual research project on a question or topic that emerged from reflection on the course materials and agreed upon with the professor. It will be 5 to 7 pages long and must use at least 4 critical sources. The author should demonstrate knowledge of the most recent scholarship on the research topic and be able to articulate the contribution of the paper to the ongoing debate.
A bonus is available for students who participate in the roundtables.

oral

Grading Scale

The minimum grade is 18, and the maximum grade is 30 with honors. Regarding the grading scale (how the grades will be assigned), there are 3 levels:

First level: 18-22 (basic level, corresponding to a C in the U.S. system): Sufficient knowledge of the content; limited ability to engage in independent discussion, limited knowledge of theoretical tools, limited knowledge of the historical-cultural context and debates.

Second level: 23-26 (intermediate level, corresponding to a B in the U.S. system): Fair knowledge of the content; fair ability to engage in independent discussion, fair knowledge of theoretical tools, fair knowledge of the historical-cultural context and debates.

Third level: 27-30 (good or excellent level, corresponding to an A in the U.S. system): Good or excellent knowledge of the content; good or excellent ability to engage in independent discussion, good or excellent knowledge of theoretical tools, good or excellent knowledge of the historical-cultural context and debates.

There is also the honors grade: awarded to highlight an excellent level of knowledge of the content, independent discussion ability, knowledge of theoretical tools, and understanding of the historical-cultural context and debates.

Lectures will guide you step by step in the encounter of new materials and the assigned readings for each class. Lecture notes and PowerPoint presentations will be made available to you after each class for study and research purposes.

Student-led roundtables are a valuable opportunity for practicing communicative and oral skills. Each roundtable will feature multiple students, with each student offering a very brief presentation raising a point for debate and drawing on the assigned reading. All the readings assigned up to the time of the roundtable are good sources you can draw upon for your presentation. To facilitate you, for each roundtable I’ve proposed a controversial issue that can be addressed from a variety of angles with the help of the course readings. In fact, the ideal roundtable intervention is a short presentation that build on a selected brief passage from one of the readings. The principal aim of the roundtable is to explore further the assigned texts from the students’ point of view, identifying what might be special points of interest for the class community. The implicit aim is of course to spark debate. Roundtables are entirely managed by the students. Students on a particular roundtable will collaborate to ensure that time is managed effectively and that debate is encouraged. Right after your roundtable presentation, each participant will need to hand in a brief written paragraph summarizing his/her contribution.

Attendance is strongly recommended.

This subject deals with topics related to the macro-area "Poverty and inequalities" and contributes to the achievement of one or more goals of U. N. Agenda for Sustainable Development