|
受到了返修后的评审意见：
Reviewer 1
1.The definition and citation of relevant concepts appear non-standard; for instance, the term "Anti-education" lacks proper bibliographic support. I would recommend supplementing appropriate references to strengthen the conceptual framework.
2.As an academic paper, this manuscript appears to lack a central research question. The content consists primarily of descriptive material without sufficient critical argumentation or analytical development.
Reviewer 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which proposes a four-part framework for transdisciplinary inquiry at the intersection of literature and education. The ambition of the work is evident, and the breadth of literary and philosophical reference is impressive. The central argument, that the relationship between education and literature can be productively understood through a dialectic of "education" and "anti-education", is a potentially generative one, and the effort to systematize a field that has long suffered from conceptual diffuseness is commendable. I offer the following comments in the spirit of constructive critique, with the hope that they may assist in refining this ambitious project.
You propose a four-part framework: education in literature, literature in education, education by literature, and writing for education. This is a promising heuristic, and the adaptation of Posner's "Law and Literature" model is a clever methodological move. However, the subsequent exposition does not consistently honor or clarify these distinctions. At several points, the categories bleed into one another, leaving the reader uncertain as to why a particular example is situated in one section rather than another. For instance, the discussion of autobiography appears under "Writing for education" (Section 5), yet autobiographical reflection is also central to the Bildungsroman tradition discussed under "Education in literature" (Section 2). Similarly, the analysis of rhetorical form in Section 3 ("Literature in education") overlaps considerably with the concerns of "Writing for education." I recommend that you open each of the four major sections with a concise, operational definition of the category, followed by a clear statement of the specific questions that category is designed to address. Then, each example must be explicitly linked back to that definition. Without this disciplined scaffolding, the framework risks becoming merely a convenient filing system for a wide-ranging collection of literary-critical observations, rather than the analytical tool it aspires to be.
You define "anti-education" in Section 1.3.1 as a critique of institutionalized education that erases individuality and imposes conformity, with Nietzsche as a pivotal forerunner. This is a serviceable starting point. However, as the manuscript unfolds, the term is applied to such a wide array of phenomena, from Sade's transgressive libertinism to Flaubert's disillusionment, from Musil's psychological interiority to Dostoevsky's spiritual suffering, that its analytical utility becomes diluted. Are all of these writers engaged in the same project of "anti-education"? Flaubert's skepticism about the educative potential of life differs markedly from Nietzsche's polemic against the German gymnasium, which in turn differs from Sade's deliberate assault on Enlightenment rationality. I would encourage you to develop a more differentiated typology of "anti-education." Perhaps distinguish between (a) the philosophical anti-education of thinkers like Nietzsche who directly attack educational institutions and ideologies; (b) the literary anti-education of novelists who narrate the failure of Bildung as a thematic preoccupation; and (c) the formal anti-education of writers whose stylistic innovations themselves constitute a refusal of didactic or readerly comfort. Without such distinctions, the concept risks becoming a catch-all for any literary work that is not straightforwardly edifying.
The manuscript is exceptionally rich in literary and philosophical references, spanning Homer, Goethe, Flaubert, Musil, Dostoevsky, and many others. However, the treatment of these texts is often elliptical, assuming a level of familiarity that many readers, even within literary studies, may not possess. A passing reference to "Sade's predicament" or "the Narcissistic self in Leopold Andrian's Der Garten der Erkenntnis" does not, in itself, constitute an argument. You must do more to explicate how these specific texts illuminate the framework you are advancing. For example, the discussion of Musil's Törleß in Section 2.2.4 is one of the more effective moments in the manuscript because you pause to describe the novel's situation and connect it to the problem of moral selfhood. Many other examples receive no such sustained attention. I recommend that you reduce the sheer number of references and instead offer more focused, paragraph-length readings of a smaller set of exemplary texts. Depth, in this case, will serve the argument far better than breadth.
Section 4.2, on the pedagogical application of literature, gestures toward empirical research on literary literacy, including a citation to Calafato and Simmonds (2022). This is a welcome move, as it grounds the discussion in contemporary classroom realities. However, the treatment of this scholarship is perfunctory. The Calafato and Simmonds study is mentioned in a single sentence, without any engagement with its findings or their implications for your framework. This is a missed opportunity. Calafato and Simmonds (2022) investigated the relationship between literary response, aesthetic competence, and literary competence among EFL learners, finding that participants' literary competence was significantly predicted by certain components of their literary response and aesthetic competence. This empirical finding could productively inform your discussion of how literature "educates", not merely through the transmission of moral content or cultural knowledge, but through the cultivation of specific interpretative and affective capacities that can be assessed and developed in instructional settings.
Section 5 introduces a number of compelling ideas: the autobiographical curriculum, the linguistic predicament of description and interpretation, the "polyphonic" tradition of writing but they are presented in a disjointed fashion. The transition from Chateaubriand's memoirs to Janet Miller's curriculum theory to the Tower of Babel metaphor is abrupt and lacks a clear organizing logic. I would suggest restructuring this section around a central question: What kind of educational agency does writing enable, and under what conditions? The autobiographical curriculum (Pinar, Miller) represents one answer: writing as a mode of self-reflexive inquiry that positions the learner as an active constructor of educational meaning. The polyphonic tradition (Bakhtin) represents another: writing as a space where multiple voices and perspectives can coexist without being reduced to a single authoritative discourse. By framing the section around this question of agency, you can draw these disparate threads into a more coherent and compelling argument.
The abstract is dense and does not clearly signal the paper's central contribution. Consider revising to foreground the four-part framework and the "education/anti-education" dialectic more prominently.
|
