it never ceases to amaze me

It never ceases to amaze me that people still write and publish stuff like this. But fair warning: it's about another author who complains about the dominance of Theory in English departments. People bored with this topic might quite reasonably give it a miss. Me, it never ceases to amaze. I sent the author an e-mail. I couldn't stop myself. I know it's stupid.

Comments

[CR]

I've got a post up about it at my site...

[John Ransom]

Hi CR, and a very fine post it was too over at your site. Thanks for pointing me there. I would post my e-mail to the author, but (a) that's unethical, correct? Even if no one would care, you're not supposed to quote from a private e-mail without everyone's permission. And (b) your response is a lot better anyway.

[Jodi]

Why do these folks who write for the Chronicle always find themselves compelled to write under pseudonyms? Does the author of this piece fear roving bands of theorists? (not a bad idea, though, like Zizek's militant psychoanalytic collectives marching along side the part that's no part.

[Craig]

Jodi - I think the idea of that particular column is that the guy will tell us what it is really like as a tenure-stream/looking for tenure-stream position young academic in the contemporary American humanities. No coincidence, I think, that the pseudonym (and, most likely, the 'real' person) is a white male suffering under the oppression of multi-cultural "Theory"... but maybe I'm imputing!

[Jodi]

Ah, so Craig, am I right in thinking that you detect an underlying racism in the article? The white man threatened by affirmative action in an uncertain job market displacing his anxieties onto multiculturalism? And here I was all invested in his fantasy of theory brigades. Must have been my own. I hate it when that happens.

[Craig]

I think there is in much "anti-Theory" writing (of varying sorts and varying qualities and varying sophistications) an underlying concern (to be diplomatic!) with identify and multicultural politics. And this is why "we" are so willing to jump on people from The Valve when they make arguments attempting to separate political committments from "Theory" while defending their own work's (and their own) credentials as (at least) "liberal."

Put another way: it is trivial to say that the column would be significantly different were it written by someone who identifies themselves as doing "post-colonialism" or "queer theory" or even "feminism" than it does when written by a white guy from a respectable family background who just wants to read the books he loves (while trying to find a tenure stream/tenured position). In other words, I've read most of his columns as bullshit on the plight of the oppressed, middle class white male in the North American humanities. Complete bullshit, of course.

[John Ransom]

As I think some of the points above imply (or state), the intellectual arguments presented have a lot less to do with what's actually going on than the old friend 'ressentiment.' Why is it, really, that so many people keep writing the same article over and over again. And then people think them worth frontloading. What do you want to bet this article is right over there at Arts and Letters and Humanities Daily right now? Ooh, it makes me so mad! Which is a psychological state itself, I know. The expression of the sentiments found in the anonymous essay -- it must make lots of people feel an intense pleasure to read and listen to them, over and over. Repetition is a part of the idea, part of what is being written.

[Jodi]

You are so right, John. How reassuring it is to be enfolded in the sustaining arms of ressentiment, the meaning, the purpose, the righteousness of it all! And, I particularly like your twist in the end regarding your own anger: the likes of us also have our versions of ressentiment that we enjoy as well.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Craig,

You gain a lot of ground, rhetorically, by linking theory to multicultural and identitarian studies, but if you think about it for a minute, you'll discover the ground you've taken imaginary. Seriously, if you're intent scoring points, the least you could do is play the team you claim you're beating. Unless there's some other Valve I haven't heard of and don't contribute to, your statements are baseless.

I mean, c'mon, you can either believe that my anti-psychoanalytic statements rise from my belief that it's sophisticated nonsense passing for a theory of cognition, or that I believe all that because I want rid the academy of identitarian disciplines. The second statement crosses the border into preposterous. If, as an historicist, I opposed the existence of disciplines which could further inform us about life in a particular historical moment, I'd be both a racist and a hypocrite.

Hell, I could easily turn this around and say because psychoanalysis isn't a valid model of human cognition, any discipline which premises itself on psychoanalytic assumptions is guaranteed never to be efficacious. Therefore, anyone who defends psychoanalysis obviously does so for pure careerist reasons, and is a racist/homophobe/idiot, because they're letting their intellectual investment impede progress.

That's the logic you're using here, and you know what, I like mine. It flatters my assumptions and brands everyone I have an intellectual disagreement with something unpleasant. So I'm going to keep repeating it until it reaches meme-status. Sure, it's not true, but it's just so damn convenient ...

[Charles]

Good Scott, you're just in time to liven up a leaden conversation. And absolutely right on cue, nothing you say follows from what Craig–who is being diplomatic–says. Take it away boys!

Rest assured, dear future confused readers, they were but only ever speaking of Scott, who was always already responding through three degrees of hard-coded reference to the voices in his head, whatever it was all about.

I deem this round already Over Par.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Now say it again, Charles, this time with feeling ...

[Craig]

Scott - feeling interpellated?

[CR]

For what it's worth, Scott, I think Charles is right. You didn't quite get Craig's post. And further, your attack on psychoanalysis wasn't on people's minds. No one would say that that was motivated by racist resentiment, no.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Jesus, Craig, you don't get it, do you? I'm not feeling interpellated. I'm feeling unjustly, dishonestly, and unnecessarily interpellated, on the basis of the series of facile, back-slapping comments made above. I'm sorry, but if you really think you can indict my positions by criticizing Benson, you're a solipsistic fraud. Only you aren't. Still, you're in Horowitz country. Feel free to roam, but know you don't belong there.

CR, I'm sure everyone appreciates your generosity, but you know as well as I that the connection Craig sketched earlier between "anti-theory" and "racism" didn't distinguish between the various critiques of "theory." Seriously, over here people claim there's no such thing as theory ... yet it mysteriously coalesces whenever someone wants to criticize one aspect of it? I'm not buying it.

Look, both of you need to be straight about it ... be consistent. If one of the two most "anti-theory" critics at the Valve has a very specific notion about what's wrong with theory, don't write idiotically vague indictments of "the Valve." Yes, it makes you feel better, like you're on the side of angels. But so what?

All I'm saying is something all of you know ... something all of you knew the second you responded to that idiotic article. Namely, that you had a strawman you could beat mercilessly, and that you had a choice: attack it for what it said, or for what you could make it say ...

... and you all chose to attack it for what you could make it say. I understand why, because believe you me, I come across dreadful articles every day. The thing is, I don't use them as a means of indicting people I think intelligent. You, however, did.

What else can I say? I thought more of you. (And by "you," I mean "everyone but Charles, who has proven himself time and again to be a willfully ignorant ass ... and who, in his response to this, will prove himself thus again, just you watch.")

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Also, Craig may be right about Benton's article, but the lazy equation of that with the critiques John and I have made?

I'm sorry, but lazy is lazy, and that reference is all to convenient.

Which is fine, if the point is to make yourself feel superior. Sure, there's probably some careerist fear in that article ... but why project that on to the specific critiques John and I have made? You say that it doesn't apply to my criticism's of psychoanalysis. So what, then, does it apply to?

It's easy to condemn without proof; preferable, even, since then you win accolades wihtout having to do much thought ... but those "victories" are ephemeral, since they're awarded, not earned.

[Charles]

::yawn::

Seriously, over here people claim there's no such thing as theory...

Seriously, proof?

...the lazy equation of that with the critiques John and I have made

Scott, read what Craig said again, maybe for the first time.

So what, then, does it apply to?

Here is what Craig said:

I think there is in much "anti-Theory" writing (of varying sorts and varying qualities and varying sophistications) an underlying concern (to be diplomatic!) with identity and multicultural politics.

Would you agree, very generally Scott, in the spirit of Craig's general comment, that Mark Bauerlein, for instance, often evinces such a concern? Even if it is only to criticize the insulation of 'debate' (or, put less generously, the fact that universities rather lag behind the times, some might say).

In all judiciousness, before continuing please (everyone) read the following two links, and let's see if they can help lift the tone a bit, if, that is, people are really interested in continuing this thing:

http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/sample.html (cache)
http://www.duke.edu/~munger/bc.htm

[CR]

Scott,

God. I just think you're mis or over-reading Craig's comment.

All he was saying, to my eyes, was that there is a history of connection between the anti-theoretical stance and anti-identitarian politics / paranoia about "reverse racism" or sexism. And that that history, which manifests itself in this silly article, is why "we" are sensitive to the move to separate academic work and political stance.

That is all. He was talking - again, my reading - self-reflectively about "our" tendencies. Not your Freud argument.

On the other hand, yes, my piece on AWP was targetting the sort of work that you do. I really didn't have you in particular in mind in writing it, as I've never read your "real" work. But, sure, you're the local spokesman for the cause... BUT - my argument had nothing to do with pinning you with the charge of racism. Hadn't even thought of it. I'm interested, rather, in the substance and import of the work.

Now... Do you want to calm down a little? Stop being so paranoid? Perhaps you should tone down the piece on your site a bit... It's over the top...

[Kenneth Rufo]

Technically, I've always said there's theory. And Theory, exists too. I just don't like the politics of proclaiming the existence of the latter, while the former seems fairly undisputable.

Speaking of theory, anyone have one as to why my infant won't nap?

[Matt]

Too hot? Maybe try some Bach, or Shostakovich?

[Craig]

Scott: per the suggestion of CR and Charles, I'd recommend re-reading my comments again. If anything, my comments weren't flattering to "my" side! But, despite the constant suggestions that you re-read what I wrote and the fact that you clearly have not, I'll say it again here and thus spare you the difficulty of scrolling up and the embarassment of realizing your mistake.

In general terms, "Theory" has been a condensation point for battles over multiculturalism and identify politics (look at the names - critical race theory, queer theory, feminism, marxism!), especially insofar as the cannon is concerned. This has traditionally mapped onto a left (yay multiculturalism and yay identies!) and right (poo-poo to multiculturalism and poo-poo to identies!) positions. The problem for people like you is that you are caught in a chain of equivalences: "Theory"=multiculturalism=indentity politics=liberalism and "Anti-Theory"=anti-multiculturalism=anti-identity politics=conservatism. That is, you are "anti-Theory" but most likely not for the rest of the positions. (Although your strange comments on the New Left make me wonder.) Put yet another way, in terms of how the rhetorical space is constructed, it is hard to argue from your position and argue against your position because it is both "liberal" and "anti-Theory." (Despite your first comment, psychoanalysis doesn't have anything to do with my comments - I have no investment in Freud or Lacan or Klein or whoever.) The point I was building up to, of course, is that it was no coincidence that a nice, reasonable, middle class, white guy was selected to be the "regular guy tries to find tenured position in the humanities" and that he is "anti-Theory."

Your now extensive comments have nothing to do with what I said. Your comments are like most of the comments and posts you make: about yourself.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Craig,

Put yet another way, in terms of how the rhetorical space is constructed, it is hard to argue from your position and argue against your position because it is both "liberal" and "anti-Theory."

In the light of morning, I get that I didn't get it. I jumped on the implications, which I saw being cheered in John and Jodi's follow-ups. That said, I'm well aware of the difficulties inherent in criticizing poststructuralism and/or psychoanalysis, because the easy, almost automatic response is self-congratulatory anti-racism seen above.

But yes, I had a bad day and jumped on you, and for that, I apologize.

Your comments are like most of the comments and posts you make: about yourself.

Of course they are. What, do you think someone else matters?

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

CR,

Don't you tell me what to do. YOU'RE NOT MY FATHER! I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU! NAH NAH NAH NAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NAH NAH NAH NAH!

That said, I'm not going to tone down my post, since it speaks to the stupidity of the article (to which there's no serious response).

[CR]

since it speaks to the stupidity of the article (to which there's no serious response).

as well as the alleged stupidity and craven solipsism of Craig and the LS gang, but ok, whatever...

http://www.langlab.wayne.edu/MLAlienation/GWilsonMLA97.html

[Jodi]

I'm not sure what Scott means by the implications he saw in mine and John's comments. All I know is that my remarks had nothing to do with him (Scott).