Stanley Eugene Fish (born 1938) is an American literary theorist
He is often associated with postmodernism, at times to his irritation, as he describes himself as an anti-foundationalist
Professor Fish has also taught at the University of California, Berkeley
Fish started his career as a medievalist.
Fish as university politician
As chair of the Duke English department from 1986 to 1992, Fish attracted attention and controversy. Fish, according to Lingua Franca, used “shameless–and in academe unheard-of–entrepreneurial gusto” to take “a respectable but staid Southern English department and transform it into the professional powerhouse of the day,” in part through the payment of lavish salaries. His time at Duke saw comparatively quite light undergraduate and graduate coursework requirements, matched by heavy graduate teaching requirements. This permitted professors to reduce their own teaching. In April 1992, near the end of Fish’s time as department chair, an external review committee considered evidence that the English curriculum had become “a hodgepodge of uncoordinated offerings,” lacking in “broad foundational courses” or faculty planning. The department’s dissipating prominence in the 1990s was featured on the front page of the New York Times
Within the first years following Fish’s departure as chair, many of his most prominent hires left, including Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (citing anti-intellectualism and homophobia), Michael Moon, and Jonathan Goldberg. By 1999, Fish’s wife, Americanist Jane Tompkins, had “practically quit teaching” at Duke and “worked as a cook at a local health food restaurant.”
Writing in Slate Magazine, Judith Shulevitz reported that not only does Fish openly proclaim himself “unprincipled” but also rejects wholesale the concepts of “fairness, impartiality, reasonableness.” To Fish, “ideas have no consequences.” For taking this stance, Shulevitz characterizes Fish as “not the unprincipled relativist he’s accused of being. He’s something worse. He’s a fatalist.”
R. V. Young writes,
“ Because his general understanding of human nature and of the human condition is false, Fish fails in the specific task of a university scholar, which requires that learning be placed in the service of truth. And this, finally, is the critical issue in the contemporary university of which Stanley Fish is a typical representative: sophistry renders truth itself equivocal and deprives scholarly learning of its reason for being. . . . His brash disdain of principle and his embrace of sophistry reveal the hollowness hidden at the heart of the current academic enterprise
Camille Paglia, author of Sexual Personae and public intellectual, denounced Fish as a “totalitarian Tinkerbell,” charging him with hypocrisy for lecturing about multiculturalism from the perspective of a tenured professor at the homogenous and sheltered ivory tower of Duke
Thanks. He is apparently responsible for a loose movement at Duke. I shudder to contemplate the number of lawyers he and his ilk have spawned.