Group Think
The Ruddick essay I discussed in the last N&C was published, as I mentioned, in November 2001, but it was revived and discussed again on several blogs last July. This comment or brief essay by Timothy Burke is particularly interesting.
It’s noticeable what a lot of words there are in both pieces that have to do with social pressure, conformity and group-think. From Ruddick’s article: accusations; how inhibiting these tensions can become; the necessity of adhering to the critical norms of the moment; dominant thinking; rules that I thought were very limiting; disgrace; I was still afraid I’d be attacked; this fear of attack can be utterly compelling; a caution bordering on ventriloquism; disciplinary taboos on certain words and ideals; the threat of ostracism by the group; subtle regulations for speech and thought that are pervasive. From Burke’s essay: the game being played is theoretical one-upmanship; the tyranny of theory; it somehow became shameful to say that I had been drawn to African history simply because it seemed interesting.
Why is that, one wonders. Of course, naturally, there is always some of that in any field, and academic fields are no exception. There are norms and standards and conventions, there is a right way to do things and a wrong way, there is pressure from colleagues to do things the right way – and a good thing too. It’s no good pretending pure anarchy would be preferable. It’s a fine and desirable and necessary thing that scientists should teach and shame each other not to fake their evidence, not to ignore disconfirming data, not to cherry-pick only the studies that support their hypotheses. Same with historians, sociologists, inquirers and researchers of all sorts. It’s fine that philosophers point out logical errors, and chastise confusion of rhetoric with argument. But when necessary demands for rigour and good evidence devolve into heresy-hunting and orthodoxy-enforcing, that’s another matter.
And of course literary ‘theory’ is exactly the sort of discipline where heresy-hunting will flourish – because what else is there? One can present quotations, of course, and say ‘There – you’ve misinterpreted that.’ But it’s always open to people to say simply ‘No I haven’t,’ and that’s that. Especially in a field where deconstruction has dismantled binary oppositions and postmodernism has revealed the futility of Grand Narratives, where Foucault has shown that everything is a power-play and Derrida has undermined phallogocentrism. So all is opinion, and you can’t tell me I’ve misunderstood or misinterpreted or got my facts wrong, but I can tell you that your approach is positivist or Eurocentric or bourgeois or Orientalist and at any rate conservative, and you will feel shamed and guilty and I will not.
So a boring repetitive parochial uniformity is imposed, and some people get out and others censor themselves, and students shrug and sign up for business administration or law instead, and it all seems very unfortunate.
Have you ever thought of picking up a copy of Modern Philology, Style, Criticism, ELH, or any of the other literally hundreds of journals that publish literary theory so that you could learn at least something about what it actually is before repeating a series of sub-Hilton Kramer bromides about it? Because if you read any of these journals, you’ll quickly note that what they publish bears no resemblance to what you describe as “literary theory.” Nothing does, in fact. And wouldn’t that be the scientific approach?
Oh yes something does. I have read literary theory that made it into books, thanks, and it does indeed bear a resemblance to what I describe – a striking resemblance. I’ve quoted some and given sources.
And of course the Hilton Kramer remark just bears out Ruddick’s point – pure guilt-by-association. ‘Ooh, you don’t like theory, therefore you’re right-wing.’ Total non-sequitur, but isn’t it fun to pretend otherwise.
Kramer and Kimball have at least read something of what they’re writing about, so it is unfair to them. The entry I’m commenting on has nothing in the way of quotations, of course, and your encapsulation of Foucault, etc. is about twenty-five years out of date.
Here’s my challenge to you: find a recently published book or article that conforms in any way to the chimera you call literary theory and show how. The things I’ve read by you on the subject that purport to do this rely on second- or third-hand quotations from Gross & Levitt, etc. If there’s something that deals with primary sources, please let me know.
As I understand it, part of your indignation about “science studies” is that these writers don’t understand the scientific concepts they discuss. I hope the irony isn’t lost on you.
I already have, Chun. Try going back through the old Notes and Comments – last month’s for instance. I don’t have time to do it all over again just for you.
Although, on second thought – I have been meaning to quote from the unreadable Robyn Wiegman article I mentioned. That would be worth doing for reasons other than re-visiting material specially for you. So I might.