« On Classification | Main | Absent Guilt »
Forgotten Classics
Are there any books that you wished more people in your own area of study or, indeed, in other areas of study too (insofar as "academics" are concerned), were more widely read? It is my personal view that the world would be well-serviced if more people took the time to read Durkheim generally and his Elementary Forms of Religious Life particularly for it is a book that is, essentially, about the "theologico-" in the "theologico-political." Put another way, he is an essential complement to Schmitt. Or, if that doesn't convince you, it seems to me that what we call "structuralism" and "post-structuralism" cannot be adequately understood without a reflection on Durkheim's final work. I mean, of course, that Mauss, Levi-Strauss, Clastres, Bataille, Derrida, Foucault and - possibly - Deleuze cannot be fully appreciated without a consideration of the influence of Durkheimian sociology. Let us not forget Agamben as well. So, if you could wield tyrannical power over all others, what book would you have them read?
By Craig | October 10, 2006 in Books | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/6378206
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Forgotten Classics:
Comments
Thanks, Craig. My dilemma is similar: students who want to start with the present but no sense of the classics.
At any rate, and I am guilty of improper engagement here: Dewey, The Public and its Problems.
Posted by: Jodi | Oct 10, 2006 4:14:50 PM
Hobbes' Leviathan. And Candide. Einstein's Relativity, mit equations. And maybe "Lil' Abner."
Posted by: Stew | Oct 10, 2006 6:33:42 PM
this isn't a conservative desire to bolster the canon is it craig? :P
there seems to be a division of academic labour in terms of those that spend their careers appraising networks of reference between scholars versus mobilisations of bodies of thought in the present. i think the best scholarly works do both, but there are questions they need to be addressed:
1) how far 'back' does one take the reference network (or 'discourse network')? to obscurity? or to the end of 'influence'? or what?
2) craig, what do you mean by 'influence'? because there is a difference between saying, for example, that Zizek has been influenced by Deleuze's philosophy (perhaps in a dialectical or at least antagonistic way) compared to saying that Zizek is a Deleuzian.
3) reading 'classics' can be as irrelevant and as much of a waste of time as contemporary mobiliations of newer bodies of thought depending on what you are trying to do, is there an objective measure? i doubt it. this may be a differential repetition of q1. lol
4) is the question of 'classics' solely that of highly programatic grad student education systems rather than the 'self-directed' learning of less restrictive phd systems? (if i was a reactionary i would say this is actually a subtle front in the culture wars between pedagogical cultures of north america versus others)
hmmm, i am sure there are others. there is another function of saying that others should read or more generally consume something, and that is the interest in this something is valorised while leaving the worthiness of the something as potential. Ie it is saying that 'this' matters, and therefore one's interest is valorised, rather than making a qualitative judgement about this thing and hence valorising the mattering of the thing. actually maybe it is a move from a juridical valorisation perhaps implicit in the term 'classic' to an affective valorisation (of 'should be read'). or maybe not, haven't thought about it enough.
Posted by: Glen | Oct 10, 2006 6:57:43 PM
Thanks for the comments, Glen. I'm afraid my comments in reply are far too brief and elusive (although I've considered putting together a short paper on the topic, if only for the national association for 'professional' 'sociologists').
Regarding the first, being social and political sociologist who takes - shall we say - a 'historical' approach to these questions, my vulgar answer is "As far as necessary." Rather unhelpful, I admit. It's my view, for instance, that it is worthwhile considering the idea of despotism in eighteenth century social and political theory. Such a consideration, I think, would extend beyond the major works - for instance, Montesquieu - to include the social and political structure of Old Regime France, the history of opposition to absolutist power, the meaning and structure of absolutist power, the ways people have responded to it, etc. That is, theoretical work, for me, necessarily contains an "empirical" component to it - whether it is going into the archives and finding new material, re-reading old material, etc. Otherwise, one verges upon commentary; which, of course, is quite interesting in-itself, but has a much more limited lifespan - "The Idea of Despotism in the Philosophy of Montesquieu" might make a good dissertation, but it isn't the stuff that inaugurates new concepts.
Regarding the second, one can certainly be "influenced" by someone without becoming a "disciple." I find Leo Strauss's Natural Right and History to be an influential book, but I am certainly not a Straussian! (I'd add that book, by the way, to the list of neglected classics.) "Influence" is certainly something more than a whiff, but also certainly less than influenza. We must always keep the genealogical and nominalistic point in mind: the presence of a word doesn't necessarily translate into the presence of a concept. And certainly "influence" includes reactions - even violent ones.
With respect to the third, "classics," at the very least, suggests a certain timelessness (it is "relevant" to "us" and to "them"), but it also suggests a certain discursive history - why do we have second year sociology classes on "Marx, Weber, Durkheim" instead of "Mill, Sombart, Tarde"?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean with the last question. It is the case that most disciplinary doctoral programmes will have something like "Classical Social Theory" and "Contemporary Social Theory" or "Medieval Political Theory" and "Postmodern Political Theory." Having said that, one could go to the Thesis Eleven Center in Australia and write your dissertation "classical" or "contemporary" social theory.
Posted by: Craig | Oct 10, 2006 7:45:47 PM
i'd have them read my goddamn book goddamnit. No, not really. From a 'postmodern' perspective, familiarity with the classics is essential. The history of Western philosophy contains a lot of information about how we think. I regret that the tradition of requiring courses in the classics, for instance in a 'core' curriculum, is no longer as strong as it once was. What that means is that there's that many fewer people who are ever introduced to the unique currents of Western reflection. And of course not only the students lose the chance to encounter an important and even decisive element of their cultural heritage, instructors do as well. In fact, everyone would benefit through a study of at least several 'leads' in Western philosophy. Now, I rush to add that a lot of times classic works are still assigned in courses even when the 'title' of the course is not expressly "Western Philosophical Thought." It is also true that Introduction to Philosophy courses (and intro political philosophy as well) are usually well subscribed. (Not as good at the higher levels, though.) So it's certainly not "all or nothing." It's not like classic works have been banned.
On which book. I will choose Stuart Hughes, _Consciousness and Society_. Maybe everyone already knows about it. It's a great book on the period leading up to World War I in Europe. It's hard to write a book about a particular period in history, because one's expertise can only go so far. But Hughes is able to discuss a wide range of the important developments that made up the full personality of the pre-war years. History, art, psychoanalysis, politics, opera -- all are brought in to give the reader a remarkably rich portrait. He's interdisciplinary all by himself.
Posted by: Swifty | Oct 10, 2006 11:13:58 PM
Hobbes is the true master. Forgetting that the Leviathan is on the short list of the *great* works of English prose, there simply is not a book more relavent to the various "disciplines" of thought - the philosophy of history, the properly political history of the question of being, language, mysticism and eschatology (as critical systems), "power", et cetera - that constitute the particular interests of our day.
The Pauline epistles, all three volumes of Capital, and the practical philosophy of Kant (including anthropology, etc.) seem good selecetions for second place. But with the recent spike in interest in Schmitt and Benjamin, in Spinoza and Hegel, there doesn't seem to be a thinker at once more relevant and more misunderstood (or simply not read) than Hobbes.
On a related note and mor locally, the various attempts of anglo-American universities to confront the historical conditions of "scientific" knowledge, which still holds people like Thomas Kuhn to be "radical" and "theoretical", belies at every turn a painful ignorance of the work of various strains of french philosophy from the beginning half of the twentieth ceentury (i.e. Canguilhem, Bachelard, etc.)
Posted by: Matt | Oct 11, 2006 4:21:46 AM
Has to be 'Jude the Obscure' for an insight into emotional and theoretical struggle intertwined with feet planted in a material world all the while. I died reading it.
Posted by: isakofsky | Oct 11, 2006 4:23:39 PM
Hayek - The Road To Serfdom
not really forgotten, but certainly ignored among my people - the most cogent and powerful articulation the other side has to offer, I think.
also Andreas Huyssen - After The Great Divide
Posted by: squibb | Oct 11, 2006 5:06:15 PM
Do Willa Cather, Thoreau or Hawthorne, count? Also: Aristotle.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 11, 2006 11:26:25 PM
Capital v2. V1 and the 1844 Manuscripts are also sadly under-read. I second Matt on Aristotle, and would like to also add Plato, Steinbeck, and everything Lewis Carroll ever wrote.
Posted by: Nate | Oct 12, 2006 2:53:28 AM
Ich und Du, and Erring: A Postmodern A/theology. Perhaps Fear and Trembling. I don't know that any of these are necessarily classics or forgotten, but I can't resist the temptation to tyrranical power much better than most.
Posted by: Michael | Oct 12, 2006 8:56:58 AM
My votes, in no particular order:
Havelock, Preface to Plato. Part of it contested, but a sea-change in contextualizing our understanding of Plato in particular and media in general.
Osborne, Politics of Time. I can't even begin to describe how incredible and thought-provoking I found this book to be, despite the fact that no one I know in my field had ever heard of it.
Bauman, Postmodern Ethics. A classic treatment of the problem of ethics/morality in a time of postmodernity, and a nice corrective to Rorty, who everyone seems to have read.
Epictetus, The Discourses. Same horizon that many a pomo discourse flounders against, usually around the time they enact some sort of crap micro-politics. Plus, they're just plain fun.
Heidegger, On Time and Being. Reverses one of the basic formations of Being and Time, has much to say to Heidegger's political idiocy, little aprreciated by folks I know who seem to have an investment in Heidegger, pro or con.
Posted by: Kenneth Rufo | Oct 12, 2006 10:02:13 AM
word to Erring and Time and Being-
and I would add Hiding and What is Called Thinking? in the same vain.
Posted by: Squibb | Oct 12, 2006 11:44:16 AM
Not Duhem, being belied, though.
Posted by: Jonathan | Oct 12, 2006 2:10:35 PM
Have to ask, Squibb, are you serious about Hiding?
There's another I forgot to mention (in addition to Willa Cather, etc--can't imagine how): Timothy Clark, Derrida, Heidegger, Blanchot. A real scholarly classic, a bit scholastic for some, still pretty much unmatched in terms of intricacy and faithfulness, still largely unread.
And while we're opening up the feast to scholars, suppose Beiser's Hegel is already seated at the table.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 12, 2006 6:34:28 PM
Osborne, Politics of Time. I can't even begin to describe how incredible and thought-provoking I found this book to be, despite the fact that no one I know in my field had ever heard of it.
I assigned large parts of it to my last grad seminar, Kenneth! I think it's fantastic too. And the problem lately has been that it is terribly hard to get a hands on a copy - where I was at grad school, it was permanently out of the library, a long list of recallers ahead of me. I believe I bought a used copy on Amazon for circa $100 (currently at $60).
Good news is that there's a new edition on its way, from what I understand.
Oh, and I think it's sad that people aren't reading much Barthes anymore. And I love Auerbach's Mimesis. Really, any "theory" that has to do with the apprehension of actual literary events has become kind of passe in the study of lit, at least from the place where I see the field.
Posted by: CR | Oct 12, 2006 10:38:09 PM
Schelling - Philosophy of Revelation
Herder - Do people ever read Herder?
Posted by: -drm- | Oct 13, 2006 10:43:50 AM
Matt:
Yes, insofar as it exhausts one particularly seductive interpretation/application of ideas I hold dear – and does so with at a high level of aesthetic execution and fluency. And I think its general wrongheadedness actually increases its pedagogical potential, insofar as it presents, side by side, certain theoretical articulations and representational strategies that end up exposing each other. In short, its incorrectness is complex and multidimensional, and this pregnancy redeems it. (not that we were taught it this way, mind you…)
S
Posted by: squibb | Oct 13, 2006 3:14:52 PM
Fair enough!
Posted by: Matt | Oct 13, 2006 3:32:59 PM
CR, I wasn't reading that other thread, but I am reading this one, so:
I find it surprising that you think Barthes isn't read much anymore, as a couple of years ago, I couldn't take a seminar that didn't include a healthy chunk of Barthes and Benjamin. Maybe people have moved on to the Cs?
But yes, Mimesis ought to be read as often as it's cited. Of course, putting out an edition which didn't require people know Greek, Latin, German, French, Spanish, &c. might help its cause.
My vote goes to Kenneth Burke, though I can't nail down a single book of his. If I did, I'd probably go with The Philosophy of Literary Form.
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Oct 13, 2006 3:45:02 PM
If I had to do a Kenneth Burke, I'd say Counter-Statement, but at least over in speech-comm he doesn't fit the post's bill, since everyone and their cousin gets schooled in Burke from the day they enter grad school. Cult-like, I tell you.
Posted by: Kenneth Rufo | Oct 14, 2006 12:34:32 AM
SEK,
lemme guess... Camera Lucida? Right?
And Gelley teaches Barthes, for sure. A ton of it - some of which has served as a cornerstone of much of the work that I've done since...
But am I right about the Benjamin conjunction? Is that the book?
Posted by: CR | Oct 14, 2006 8:26:32 PM
oh, and Scott, you go to, you know, Irvine...
(PS - what other thread?)
Posted by: CR | Oct 14, 2006 8:28:16 PM
CR, the "Academic Distinction" thread where you asked whether I was reading it.
Actually, I haven't had to read Camera Lucida, but most of Image-Music-Text (various), S/Z (Iser), Pleasures of the Text (Miller), Mythologies (Gelley, Schwab), and various other bits on semiology in a couple of different courses. I'd taken into account the Irvine bias, thinking "If we have to read him in every class, it must be bigger." (Not that that's a good assumption, mind you.)
The Barthes/Benjamin connection's too pervasive to limit, really. I'd read the "Theses" in every other seminar, along with "The Storyteller." Took two modernist courses in which we read chunks of The Arcade Project...hell, check out the shelf I named "americanist books" two years back when I wrote about my bookshelves. You can even see The Origins of the German Trauerspiel peeking its head above those two Benjamin tombs.
And look! There's The Philosophy of Literary Form right next to it. That's just...odd. But Kenneth, I agree that Counter-Statement's the more interesting book, I'm just not sure it's as neglected. I recall seeing it cited more often, though that may just be the vagaries of my own reading.
Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Oct 15, 2006 2:44:19 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.
