So It’s a Sample You Want?
A reader of ours seems to think I haven’t actually read any bad writing. He’s wrong about that. He tells me to quote some that’s recently published. Very well. Mind you, I wouldn’t do it just to please him, but I’ve been meaning to anyway, when I got around to it, so I’ll get around to it now.
This is from a book published this very year, 2003. It is called, elegantly, The Futures of American Studies, and is edited by Donald E. Pease and Robyn Wiegman. Here is a sample – highly representative, I assure you – from the Introduction:
Like most founding gestures, this one gave monumental status to an origin retrospectively invoked, thereby giving the past authority over the present in a management strategy that seemed aimed to contextualize, if not override, the present threat of rupture and incoherence. In so doing, Wise sought to repair the conceptual ground of a field whose fissuring into multiple programs and subfields at once reflected and gave expression to the aspirations of social movements that had exceeded the ‘founding’ field’s epistemological grasp. The canonical objects of analysis, protocols of reading them, and the interpretive narratives that had secured Wise’s field identity were brought into the ambit of the crisis he diagnosed. In the wake of this encounter, Wise strained to invent a paradigmatic drama that would enable him to feel at home in any of the possible trajectories of the emergent field.
Stop, that’s enough! I want to go on, each sentence is more delicious than the last, so I keep typing, but there is such a thing as copyright, after all. So there you are. I must say, breathes there a soul so dead that that passage doesn’t inspire it with uncontrollable mirth? And it’s all like that. The intro is 38 pages long and it’s all full of that dark suspicion, that insistently paranoid rhetoric, that fatuously portentous jargonization of nothing very much, that wishful mention of ‘social movements’ as if this kind of thing were sort of the academic version of the Flint sit-down strike.
This bit is from the article by Robyn Wiegman, ‘Whiteness Studies and the Paradox’:
I am interested in Forrest Gump as the specific instance and the popular imaginary as the general context for thinking about the academic emergence of an antiracist knowledge project designed to interrogate and historicize whiteness: whiteness studies…If social construction has been used to de-essentialize the racially minoritized subject – to wrestle subjectivity from its oversaturation, indeed reduction to embodiment – then whiteness studies evinces the anxiety of embodiment on the other side of racial power hierarchies, an anxiety that is in itself the consequence of counterhegemonic race discourses that have put pressure not just on what but on how the white body means.
Again – it’s all like that. Page after page of it, treading water, going nowhere. Straining after profundity until the veins stand out on its poor hot forehead, and achieving only polysyllabicality. And then thinking there’s something radical about the whole thing! And there’s something so cringe-making about the sheep-like adoption of Lacanian terminology for no apparent reason, and something so risible about the conjunction of Forrest Gump with a project to historicize something. But there – perhaps I’m just dense, and this sort of thing is terrifically profound.
Bloody hell!
It isn’t profound, it’s nonsense.
When I was still in the lecturing business, we had the pleasure every year of giving a paper to fellow members of staff.
At this time, I hadn’t yet got the PhD, so I was quite humble (hard to believe, I know!) Anyhow, I gave my seminar, and came up against a bloke – a good guy actually – who was a Levinas expert. It was a nightmare. He kept on about this “always other” or some such – and when I asked him to explain he would just gesture as if to indicate that the other was all around us or something. The whole thing degenerated into farce pretty quickly.
Afterwards I bumped into a guy who had been in the seminar – and who actually was (is) one of the world’s leading Max Weber experts.
I said to him that I didn’t have the confidence to challenge the Levinas guy properly (pre-PhD and all that) – to tell him that he was jsut talking nonsense.
He looked at me and growled: “Well I bloody do, it was complete nonsense”.
And so it was.
Nooo, it’s not hard to believe you were humble then, not a bit of it.
That bit about gesturing – that’s funny, that’s exactly what Mark Crispin Miller said about the wordlessly-enchanted acolytes of Homi Bhabha. They were quite unable to say what was so impressive about the lecture Bhabha had just given, they just gestured…
That first quote looks like it is trying to say something, out of context it is hard to tell what. But I’m sure you could probably summarise the none-too-profound point in two sentences.
Its a bit like my undergraduate experience of philosophy really, read 30 dense pages and summarise the single point in a coupel of lines.
If you don’t know the Postmodern generator go here…
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern
…it is a computer program that generates a guaranteed meaningless post modern essay. Read the essay. Notice that you keep thinking it is making sense as commentor PM above felt about the first quote. Perhaps, but the Postmodern generator is a good innoculation against our own tendancy to make sense out of damn near anything. Perhaps it is a sort of verbal Rorschach test. Enjoy
Ah, but the fiendishly cunning nature of the human author is that they can put things in that really do make sense occasionally!
Aha! A new version of the Turing test.
i am an english major.
i am currently attending the university of california @ berkeley.
please pity me.
Oh dear, oh dear, we do. Come here for refreshment as often as you can.
“They muddy their waters that they may seem deep.” — Nietzsche
It’s so cute that Ophelia thinks any word with three syllables is “Lacanian”!
American Studies in general–and this book in particular–is a disaster area. But surely OB can do better? The passages are badly written, but you can figure out what they’re getting at: (1) the invention of a program for American Studies that would paper over problems what it meant to be American; (2) the possibility that recently-hip “Whiteness studies” may end up celebrating whiteness even though it’s just trying to analyze it.
Why is it only humanities writing that is subject to these yawn-inducing diatribes? Why doesn’t Ophelia go to work on academic studies of astrophysics, economics, or leisure sports management? It would at least be more original.
Wake me up when it’s over.
It’s so…I don’t know what, that at this late date a man thinks it’s a good and witty ploy to use the word ‘cute’ to belittle a woman he disagrees with.
Yes I know I can figure out what they’re getting at, and I said as much. They’re not getting at very much; that’s the point. The ratio of what-they’re-getting-at to pages covered is ludicrously out of proportion.
I’m not particularly trying to be original. If an abuse persists, originality is not the issue; one simply has to keep nagging away at the same unoriginal abuse. And it’s blindingly obvious why ‘humanities’ writing is subject to these diatribes: because there is a lot of bad writing in humanities departments. Why rob banks? Because that’s where the money is.
Could there be an envy and fear of the power and success of the sciences and commonsense philosophy reflected in this awful trend?
You are not dense. The so-called writing that you are attacking is dense. It is one of the things that drove me out of academe a quarter-century ago. Richard Mitchell is our patron saint. (The Graves of Academe)
Richard H. Andrew, Ph.D.
Yes there could. And thank you – the ‘maybe I’m dense’ remark was a bit of sarcasm, really. The writing I attack is one of the reasons I didn’t go into academe in the first place…
Richard Mitchell is indeed excellent – we have a link to his site, it’s one of the very first ones I added.
See ‘The Underground Grammarian’ under Recommended Websites in Links. Or paste in this –
http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/
Your cute commenter’s slam at astrophysics is exemplary of science envy running amok. While I am not an astrophysicist, I am an English-lit grad working in science publishing. I’ve read a lot of theory, and I’ve read a lot of astrophysics.
There is no competition. Astrophysicists are not always graceful writers, but they’re usually clear (for all that most of them write in English as a second language), and they always write about something real.
And who would not prefer to read an astrophysicist’s literary criticism than a literary critic’s astrophysics?
Here’s the saddest part of all: while all these middle class profs sat around congratualting thmeselves that they wer doing all sorts of radical action, the politcal right in America crushed the left. It is not at all radical to deconstruct a poem; it’s a parlour trick, the worst sort of sophistry. Dorothea Day, where are you…
Ah, Mr. Brown, too true! I still thank my stars I fled grad school with only a master’s in English – and that in writing poetry (not torturing it with Theory). Too bad our current subnarrative matrix expresses a dieretic precultural conception of selfhood being used on a vast scale to entrench outdated, colonialist contextualizations of self and other!
I completely agree with you, OB. Because of scheduling problems, I unwillingly ended up taking a literature course (with a postcolonial, cross-cultural theme) to complete my university studies this term. The horrific writing I was forced to decipher this term has completely killed my desire to pursue any further studies. I am well familiar with the defense mechanisms you mention. If we students complain about the impenetrable writing we are given to read, the stock response is that “complex ideas require complex language,” and that we students need to “learn how to read.”
How “empowering” is that?
I don’t know what is more upsetting, that this inpenetrable writing is considered valuable enough to be required reading, or that people with powerful positions in academia actually take it seriously.
“Like most founding gestures, this one gave monumental status to an origin retrospectively invoked, thereby giving the past authority over the present in a management strategy that seemed aimed to contextualize, if not override, the present threat of rupture and incoherence. In so doing, Wise sought to repair the conceptual ground of a field whose fissuring into multiple programs and subfields at once reflected and gave expression to the aspirations of social movements that had exceeded the ‘founding’ field’s epistemological grasp. The canonical objects of analysis, protocols of reading them, and the interpretive narratives that had secured Wise’s field identity were brought into the ambit of the crisis he diagnosed. In the wake of this encounter, Wise strained to invent a paradigmatic drama that would enable him to feel at home in any of the possible trajectories of the emergent field.”
One feature of this particular kind of bad writing–one it doesn’t share with (unnecessarily) bad scientific or technical writing–is its tin ear for metaphor. In the passage above, we have a “gesture” that “gives status” as part of a “management strategy” that is “aimed” to do something to a “threat.” Someone “sought to repair” the “ground of a field” which was “fissured” into programs, etc., that “at once reflected and gave expression to” “aspirations” that exceeded the “field’s grasp.” And someone “strained to invent” a “drama” that would “enable him to feel at home” in “trajectories” of a “field.”
How do you feel at home in a trajectory? How can a field have trajectories, and what does it mean to feel at home in them? How do fissures reflect, or give expression to, aspirations? We use metaphors to make language and ideas more vivid; we avoid some metaphors because they’ve lost their effectiveness through overuse. But this kind of theory-writing habitually uses metaphors as though they weren’t metaphors at all–as though the metaphoric “field,” for example, didn’t derive its usefulness from our awareness of real fields, or the metaphoric “trajectory” from our familiarity with real trajectories. I think this willful ignoring of the connection between language and reality is one reason for theory’s peculiarly airless quality.
Does anyone know where I can get free online grant applications?
I keep hearing co-workers talk about getting free online grant applications so I have been searching around for the best site to get one.
Thanks for your help!
http://www.justin.tv/granthoggins/profile
____________________
http://www.twine.com/user/blackpussycat