« Shared Processes | Main | Dictatorship of the proletariat »
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.
By Swifty | July 18, 2006 in Academia | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/5460419
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference it never ceases to amaze me:
» Flatter Me, Please from Acephalous
Not every article bears great fruit. Sometimes it blossoms rotten. Doesn't matter how you approach it, you'll be gagging by the end. Case in point. Now you'd think people would recognize it as such. You'd think they'd read it, be [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 18, 2006 11:57:40 PM
» Flatter Me, Please from Acephalous
Not every article bears great fruit. Sometimes, it blossoms rotten. Doesn't matter how you approach it, you'll be gagging by the end. Case in point. Now you'd think people would recognize it as such. You'd think they'd read it, be [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 19, 2006 12:24:47 AM
Comments
I've got a post up about it at my site...
Posted by: CR | Jul 18, 2006 10:39:38 AM
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.
Posted by: John Ransom | Jul 18, 2006 1:04:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Jodi | Jul 18, 2006 1:17:47 PM
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!
Posted by: Craig | Jul 18, 2006 1:50:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Jodi | Jul 18, 2006 3:25:50 PM
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.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 18, 2006 3:35:09 PM
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.
Posted by: John Ransom | Jul 18, 2006 6:46:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Jodi | Jul 18, 2006 7:10:22 PM
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 ...
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 18, 2006 11:00:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Charles | Jul 19, 2006 12:51:27 AM
Now say it again, Charles, this time with feeling ...
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 19, 2006 1:15:59 AM
Scott - feeling interpellated?
Posted by: Craig | Jul 19, 2006 1:18:50 AM
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.
Posted by: CR | Jul 19, 2006 1:27:14 AM
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.")
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 19, 2006 3:50:13 AM
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.
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 19, 2006 3:57:30 AM
::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
Posted by: Charles | Jul 19, 2006 10:20:11 AM
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...
Posted by: CR | Jul 19, 2006 10:29:01 AM
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?
Posted by: Kenneth Rufo | Jul 19, 2006 10:45:43 AM
Too hot? Maybe try some Bach, or Shostakovich?
Posted by: Matt | Jul 19, 2006 11:10:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 19, 2006 11:18:15 AM
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?
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 19, 2006 1:28:56 PM
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).
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 19, 2006 1:41:04 PM
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...
Posted by: CR | Jul 19, 2006 2:02:37 PM
http://www.langlab.wayne.edu/MLAlienation/GWilsonMLA97.html
Posted by: | Jul 19, 2006 2:05:17 PM
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).
Posted by: Jodi | Jul 19, 2006 2:17:40 PM
I hereby invoke my right to be absolutely, 100% percent wrong.
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 19, 2006 2:35:42 PM
Acknowledged!
Posted by: Jodi | Jul 19, 2006 3:02:46 PM
There's no intellectual position that cannot be held dishonestly and opportunistically. This is not always buried deep in some inaccessible recess. Remember the great moment in Shakespeare's *Julius Ceasar* when Antony has finished his incredible speech to the crowd that has gathered to listen to the conspirators, and then to him. Antony manages to turn the crowd completely around: from supporting Brutus and the assassination of Ceasar to calling for Brutus' head. Shakespeare has Antony say to himself in a stage whisper: "Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot, Take thou what course thou wilt!"
Antony knows exactly what he's doing. In a dangerous and unstable political environment, he's trying to stir up a hornet's nest and benefit from the chaos that results. To achieve this, he presents himself falsely as a great friend of Ceasar overcome with grief. But there are lots of other shadings of self-awareness when it comes to motivations, all the way to being quite unaware of the true motives for an act, as well as wrongly ascribing to oneself a motive that is actually a cover for another one that lies below. The division is not between those who know their true motivations and those who don't. Rather, there's a spectrum. The spectrum is called "how self-aware one is about the motives for one's acts". The left end of the spectrum is 'not aware at all' and the right end is 'completely aware.' Antony is over there on the right end of the scale. (Of course, even Antony can be talked about. The motive, 'stir things up so I can fish in troubled waters' is enough for him. He doesn't need more than that to explain his actions to himself, and does not look further. But what about his relation to Ceasar?) On the far left end of the scale are the contending royal factions in mid-nineteenth century France, the Orleanists and the Bourbons, that Marx describes in _The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte_. What these two factions really represent are two kinds of capital. But if you talk to a member of one of these houses, you'll get a long history leading up to the belief that one house should rule France rather than the other. And Marx is not utterly dismissive: "What kept the two factions apart, therefore, was not any so-called principles, it was their material conditions of existence, two different kinds of property; it was the old contrast between town and country, the rivalry between capital and landed property. That at the same time old memories, personal enmities, fears and hopes, prejudices and illusions, sympathies and antipathies, convictions, articles of faith and principles bound them to one or the other royal house, who denies this? Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, and views of life. The entire class creates and forms them out of its material foundations and out of the corresponding social relations. The single individual, who derives them through tradition and upbringing, may imagine that they form the real motives and the starting point of his activity. While each faction, Orleanists and Legitimists, sought to make itself and the other believe that it was loyalty to the two royal houses which separated them, facts later proved that it was rather their divided interests which forbade the uniting of the two royal houses. And as in private life one differentiates between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does, so in historical struggles one must distinguish still more the phrases and fancies of parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality" (_18th Brumaire_, Chapter III).
Between the two ends of the spectrum -- not always or even usually in the precise middle between them -- is where we see a lot of the range of human acts and their relation to motivation fall. How does that work with the article in question? That's what I thought the conversation was about, and the sudden eruption of comments that are irrelevant to it caught me off guard and unprepared. They do nothing to advance the discussion. That doesn't mean everyone can't write what they want. No one is trying to be anyone's father, much less censor -- at least not consciously. "Blogs," as comrade Stalin once said in a different context, "will take anything that is written on them," and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
But this freedom should be Christian in Luther's sense. In "The Freedom of a Christian" Luther writes that "A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none." Christians don't need laws, not even the commandments; they don't need wealth, fame, and so on. A christian man doesn't need to be told not to covet: he knows that coveting is a symptom of taking this world too seriously while devaluing the only object of value, the next world. He doesn't covet not because he's been *told* not to, but because coveting is done by a slave, someone still fooled concerning the value of the things of this world.
And so commentators can interrupt a discussion and turn it away from its object and onto intellectually irrelevant topics, calling other people "asses" and "simpletons." They are free and can write whatever they want. But they should not do so. This 'should not', however, is not issued by authority figures and obedience to it is not blind. Rather our individual and communal commitment to the development of the intellectual topic at hand is what will constrain us. Everything else on a philosophy blog is *pathetic posturing*.
Posted by: John Ransom | Jul 19, 2006 4:36:46 PM
I think some of the criticism of Thomas H. Benton's article is a little unfair. (I didn't like the piece either, perhaps mainly because I think "Dead Poets Society" is a terrible movie.) For one thing, I don't think he's hiding out as an anonymous author; in fact, Thomas H. Benton is actually William A. Pannapacker, a prof at Hope College--don't think I'm giving anything away here, as Dr. Pannapacker proudly lists his "Benton" publications on his website! For another, calling Dr. Pannapacker a racially insensitive white guy hiding out from invading multicultural hordes (or something along those lines) is overly simplistic. In previous columns Dr. P. has talked about what it was like to be a working-class grad student who went way beyond the educational levels of his parents. That is, while Long Sunday has focused on race/gender, let's bring in class, a little bit. I've always thought that Benton/Pannapacker is slightly hostile to theory because he associates it (rightly or wrongly) with elite privilege. BTW, as a side note, Pannapacker was a major grad-student labor activist in the 1990s, so if he's become more "establishment," it's by a very roundabout route. I'm not trying to smack anyone down here, just complicate the discussion a bit. A lot of you are making highly personal bad-faith charges, so it would be a good idea to research the author a bit; you might end up liking him more in spite of yourself.
And yes, I am going to be anonymous for my own comment...frankly, yes indeed, you guys are pretty intimidating, though I don't imagine you smashing a baseball bat through my window :) It actually reassures me to know that at least three people on this comment thread are parents!!
Posted by: Bride of the Son of Serenity Sperm | Jul 19, 2006 4:41:45 PM
One aspect of Pannabacker/Benton's article that interested me (I'm a Brit) is his nostalgia for something that didn't exist: a kind of faux anglaiserie; (the bit about the fall, the gothic and sweaters). I think what he's evoking here is the American borrowing of a British private ('Public'(!!!)) school domination of English studies at Oxford and Cambridge on either side of the First World War.
Part of the resentment towards theory is that the beastly foreigner got into 'our' patch. 'Alien' voices from France and Germany have invaded. 'We' know how to do literature: we sit round in the company of like-minded people and 'appreciate'. Anyone who questions the assumptions and origins behind this activity is suspect.
Posted by: isakofsky | Jul 20, 2006 1:05:42 AM
There is more bullshit in the comments than in the article that the poster is scornful of.
Posted by: N.Zuckerman | Jul 20, 2006 12:48:36 PM
Well, now there is.
Posted by: John Ransom | Jul 20, 2006 2:22:40 PM
Well, just to address the last issue... If we're going to "complicate" Benton/Pannapacker wouldn't it be advisable to look into the politics and position of Hope College? I have my doubts any self-respecting, working-class activist would take a job there. For example: http://www.mediamouse.org/briefs/042605hope_.php
The "elite privilege" that you claim Benton/Pannapacker associates with theory, I would surmise, is *leftist* theory. I doubt he has any problem with the New Critics. And using Dead Poet's Society as a target is old hat (and a dead giveaway) that it's coming from conservative circles. I should know, I attended Hillsdale College in the 80's, which is known as the No.1 conservative college in U.S. I'm still recovering from the brain-fuck I received there. I too was a working-class undergrad dazzled by the "ivied halls of learning". It's all too easy and pleasant to get sucked into defending and identifying with the very status quo that served to determine your initial exclusion.
Posted by: Kristine Danielson | Jul 22, 2006 3:23:10 PM
Coming into this a little late, I can say that I viewed Scott's comments as a pretty shocking non-sequitur.
That said, I would also remark that John and Scott are not the only people who post at the Valve and that the general drift of comment threads at the Valve could fairly and intelligibly be referred to by the shorthand "at the Valve." Admittedly, it's hard to rigorously document "the general drift of comment threads" -- and so demanding particular concrete evidence would be a great way to completely kill a discussion of said drift.
In conclusion, obviously anyone who thinks that Freud's data-gathering techniques were sometimes suspect longs for a return to Jim Crow.
Thanks for your time, everyone.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Jul 22, 2006 10:46:45 PM
Coming into this a little late, I can say that I viewed Scott's comments as a pretty shocking non-sequitur.
I concur!
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 23, 2006 10:22:35 PM
It's interesting that the author turns out to be Pannapacker - who, after all, attacked the Valve for its treatment of the Theory issue. Reading the pseudonymous column, it's hardly surprising that he attacked us. What is surprising - I agree with Scott about this - is Craig's linkage between the column and the Valve. How can it possibly make sense to move from the column to the Valve, like so?
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."
Anti-Theory writing betrays an underlying ... Pannppackerishness? So when you see what is obviously wrong with the column, you see what is secretly wrong with ... much that goes on at the Valve? Why should that be?
There are obvious reasons why saying this is wrong, and no obvious reasons why it should be secretly right. (Just curious whether Craig thinks he can fill in the blanks.)
As to the question of 'drift', I fail to see how Bauerlein - who posted very infrequently, very little about Theory, and has now left - can be the tone-setting figure here. He didn't even post his contribution to the Theory's Empire event at the Valve. Also, he doesn't self-identify as a 'liberal'. Scott and I produce, by weight, most of the Valve writings on the Theory thing (together we produce more than half, I'm sure). I would tend to assume that if you talk about 'the Valve on Theory' you are basically talking about the two of us. So what are the grounds for reading us as crypto-Pannapackers?
It also seems worth mentioning that Pannapacker's position is not represented in Theory's Empire. There is basically not one single contribution to that thick volume that sounds his (quite familiar) chord of complaint. So the fact that someone is positive about Theory's Empire is not exactly prima facie evidence of Pannapackerishness.
Posted by: jholbo | Jul 24, 2006 3:32:37 AM
Kristine,
Can you explain your take that no self-respecting working class activist would take a job at Hope College? I'm committed to a view that academics also work, but "working class activist" is a bit of stretch applied to faculty I think. Does the non-credibility of Hope employees apply only to faculty, or to leftists who may be working there as clerical workers, janitors, computer support, etc?
Take care,
Nate
Posted by: Nate | Jul 24, 2006 12:11:36 PM
May I just say, Kristine, thanks for commenting. You make some very appropriate contextualizing, and revealing points, to be sure. So thanks for setting the record straight.
John writes:
It's interesting that the author turns out to be Pannapacker - who, after all, attacked the Valve for its treatment of the Theory issue
Yes, that is interesting. Of course he "attacked" you for not being polemical enough, and not because he disagreed with anything you were saying, or for that matter the generally perceived thrust of the attack or indeed the organizing impetus behind Theory's Empire.
Singing the nostalgic culture-warrior's song, in other words, he only wished your event had been less polite.
As such, one might say, risking a bit of honest contention, that whether consciously or not, he does appear content to play the predictable and unwavering foil to modern times, as it were (much like Brian Leiter), the very existence of whose tired bluster rather dignifies the Valve's (or for that matter Theory's Empire's) self-positioning as the more intellectual, "polite" alternative front in this battle with a long and ignorant history on both sides (though one waged almost exclusively against "Theory"), a battle nevertheless repeatedly framed by yourself, John, and others with such an obvious interest in such framing, as directly targetted on "an entire school of thought" (presumably all of post-structuralism, or anything indebted to either Marx, Freud/Lacan or Heidegger – it seems to depend on the opportunity) "that cannot die fast enough."
Nothing is beyond criticism, of course, including Theory. But when one conveniently groups such diverse strands of thought together under one roof, as a "school of thought" (in Holbo's exact phrase), nuanced or useful criticism is often (though not always, it is true) sacrificed to such things as polemic, to popular history, to advertising, and so on. I take it this is all rather obvious, and indeed John himself is quick to admit as much wrt "analytic philosophy," when he is pressed.
In any case, however real, thankfully self-positioning and academic politics are not the final say on anything, and so being joined – whether in pure coincidence or in general historical agreement – by an anti-Theory bent is hardly any reasonable cause to rule out prima facie anything John at The Valve lets flow (some of which has little or nothing to do with such axes being ground, after all). Which is only to say, again, with Craig, that there are in "'anti-Theory' writings... varying sorts and varying qualities and varying sophistications." So, let's assume that John Holbo would prefer to be heard as an example of the more sophisticated wing, if on any wing at all. In which case, it would of course be necessary to turn to his writings (or those of Scott) directly, and especially to the responses that follow in specific comments, all of which rather speak for themselves, if one wishes to be more than general.
Posted by: | Jul 24, 2006 12:25:21 PM
I'm not exactly sure who I'm responding to--though I could venture a guess--but if you want to turn to my most recent musings about theory, you could start by looking at the posts linked to in this comment. The comment threads following them are long, deliberative and have an effect on the posts which follow them. Granted, they're at my place, not the Valve. (But it's only a matter of "yet," as I'm still working through those ideas.)
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Jul 24, 2006 1:23:26 PM
So, can I take that as a (rather drawn-out) 'no' answer to my question? The question being: was Craig's hint at a Pannapacker-Valve equation warranted?
Posted by: jholbo | Jul 24, 2006 9:16:42 PM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
