CFP: Cavell, Wittgenstein, and the Ethics of Reading

Ordinary language philosophy has long invited literary scholars to treat reading as an ethical practice rather than a technical one. A new call for papers centres on Stanley Cavell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, asking how their work reshapes what it means to read carefully, responsively, and with moral attention. The editors seek contributions that bring these philosophical traditions into conversation with concrete acts of interpretation, reception, and pedagogy.

The call arrives as literary criticism grapples with questions of responsibility, voice, and address that resist purely formalist answers. Cavell's writing on skepticism and acknowledgment, alongside Wittgenstein's investigations into rule-following and meaning, offers resources for treating texts not merely as objects of analysis but as occasions for self-examination.

For scholars working across the Pacific, the call carries particular resonance. Australian universities have sustained strong traditions in analytic philosophy and literary criticism, often in conversation with one another. Researchers at institutions from Melbourne to Brisbane, along with members of the Australasian Association of Philosophy community, are being encouraged to consider submissions drawn from these contexts.

What the call is asking

The thematic framing brings together two figures whose work on language and life rarely appears in standard conference programmes. Cavell's sustained attention to how we acknowledge others through speech, particularly in the experience of tragedy, marriage, and the ordinary, sits alongside Wittgenstein's reminder that meaning lives in use and that following a rule is a practice embedded in forms of life.

Submissions are expected to engage critically with both thinkers, or to stage their exchange productively. The editors welcome papers on canonical works, contemporary fiction, drama, poetry, and non-fiction, alongside essays reflecting on pedagogy. Abstracts of around 300 to 500 words are typically requested, with full papers of 6,000 to 8,000 words invited for a planned edited collection.

Possible topics include the ethics of address in narrative voice, the role of criteria in literary judgment, what it means to read someone as a moral agent rather than a textual function, and how Wittgensteinian considerations bear on problems of intention and interpretation.

Cavell's reading room

Cavell's writing has often been described as a conversation between philosophy and ordinary life, and nowhere is this more evident than in his discussions of Shakespeare, Emerson, and the Hollywood comedies of remarriage. For Cavell, reading is a way of being claimed by a text, a process in which the reader's forms of life are exposed and tested.

His concept of acknowledgment offers a fertile entry point for ethics-oriented inquiry. Where knowledge concerns the identification of facts, acknowledgment concerns the recognition of others as beings toward whom one stands in relation. Applied to reading, this reframes interpretation as a practice in which the reader takes responsibility for what the text says, and to whom.

The call invites participants to bring this thinking to bear on contemporary debates about voice and authority. How might acknowledgment reshape our approach to unreliable narration, to canons long read from the outside, or to the act of reviewing itself? Cavell's presence in the call signals that interpretive ethics is internal to what it means to read at all.

Wittgenstein and ordinary textures of language

Wittgenstein's later philosophy functions as a corrective to grand theorising, urging attention to what we actually say and do with words. For literary studies, this orientation shifts focus from speculative interpretation back to the specific textures of textual exchange. A reader who has taken Wittgenstein seriously learns to notice how a phrase is used, what it does in context, and the way it invites or resists a particular response.

The rule-following considerations in the Philosophical Investigations raise acute questions for criticism. If every act of reading is a move within a practice, then judgments about meaning are inseparable from the forms of life in which they occur. This insight does not collapse interpretation into relativism; it asks what shared standards can still bind readers together, and how those standards are transmitted through texts.

The CFP encourages work that takes up these questions without falling into technical philosophy or untethered impressionism. Productive directions include examining criteria in evaluating poetry, the way genre conventions shape ethical response, and the philosophical stakes of asking what an author "really meant" once ordinary language thinking has been absorbed into interpretive habits.

Reading ethically across the curriculum

The ethical import of reading has practical consequences for course design. In Australian tertiary settings, where majors in literature often sit alongside philosophy electives, the call opens space for cross-disciplinary curricula taking ordinary language philosophy as a methodological foundation.

Pedagogy-oriented submissions might draw on small-group reading seminars, assessment regimes that foreground response as well as analysis, or unit designs that pair Wittgensteinian excerpts with short fiction and lyric. Such contributions could shift the conversation about reading ethics out of seminar rooms at the University of Sydney and into the broader teaching culture of the Australasian university sector. Prospective contributors are encouraged to consult curated reading lists as a starting point for situating their arguments within existing scholarship.

Preparing a submission that fits the brief

Writers considering a contribution can sharpen their proposals by attending to several practical matters, especially given the volume of submissions these calls typically attract. A clear, well-scoped abstract often does more work than a polished full draft, since reviewers read quickly and look for a definite argumentative edge.

• Reading one of Cavell's late essays on literature in full before drafting, rather than relying on summaries that flatten his voice.
• Selecting a Wittgensteinian passage that genuinely troubles an interpretive habit, and showing how the philosophical difficulty translates into a literary-critical one.
• Using Australian examples where they fit naturally, whether drawing on regional publishing histories, local syllabi, or ongoing debates in Australasian literary studies.
• Targeting the call's abstract word count precisely, since reviewers sort through many submissions and brevity aids clarity.

Early contact with the editors is also welcome, particularly for proposals that want to test an approach before committing to a full draft.

The deadline for abstracts will be set in the coming weeks, and interested contributors should watch the project's announcements page for updates. Workshops associated with the call are expected in late 2026, possibly alongside a symposium in Melbourne or Sydney to mark the editing process. Scholars, postgraduate students, and independent writers with serious engagement in ordinary language philosophy are warmly encouraged to submit, share the call widely, and reach out to the editors with any submissions-related enquiries.