Passage’s Criteria

Passage publishes, exclusively, creative-critical work.

This means we do not accept traditional papers, even if their topic is innovative. This also means we do not publish essays that are not based on research and are demonstrably rigorous scholarship. We will prioritise autotheoretical works, which we understand as pieces that employ an autobiographical approach to nuance, perform, and inform cultural theory. We approach the autotheoretical “impulse” as Fournier calls it, as a way to reach beyond the self, not simply furnish and barricade the self and its identity.

Please refer to the following criteria:

• PASSAGE

  • Passage as in corridor, connective space between oneself and disciplines, periods, cultures - but also genres. The encounter between the intimate and past cultural practices and discourses is key.

  • Passage as in a way in or out. The encounter between past and self is an outcome, but, ultimately, a means to an end: understanding and proposing other ways of being: how do we live? how could we live? How should we live?

  • Passage as in a fragment of text* or painting. The potential of citational practices is exciting - what happens when you crash your own voice against others’? We find special joy in building scaffoldings with other works* (see the second set of criteria below).

  • Passage as in the French pas sage, not well-behaved. In classic academic approaches, an “I” is to be suppressed, denying its compatibility with empirical science. We want to nuance that and break away from these conventions (see last point in criteria below).

• VOICES AND HYBRIDITY

  • Is there an "autobiographical" and/or autofictional voice, an "I" that offers itself up?

  • Is this “I” clearly embodied, sensuous?

  • Is this “I” using the past to create new possible practices, discourses, forms that serve an existential purpose?

  • Is there at least another theoretical, literary, artistic voice, a form of cultural heritage, practice, discourse with which the “I” engages, and vice versa?

  • Is (at least one of) the voice(s) theoretically and methodologically sound enough to allow for a critical review by peers?

  • Does the piece need both voices, otherwise it feels like it is missing something?

  • Is there a sense of experimentation that would not be publishable in a traditional scientific journal?

We recommend having a look at our published issues to see what this can mean in practical terms.