Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Latest Theory Is That Theory Doesn't Matter [BWAHAHA Alert!]
NY Times ^ | 4-19-03 | EMILY EAKIN

Posted on 04/19/2003 10:58:42 AM PDT by Pharmboy

These are uncertain times for literary scholars. The era of big theory is over. The grand paradigms that swept through humanities departments in the 20th century — psychoanalysis, structuralism, Marxism, deconstruction, post-colonialism — have lost favor or been abandoned. Money is tight. And the leftist politics with which literary theorists have traditionally been associated have taken a beating.

In the latest sign of mounting crisis, on April 11 the editors of Critical Inquiry, academe's most prestigious theory journal, convened the scholarly equivalent of an Afghan-style loya jirga. They invited more than two dozen of America's professorial elite, including Henry Louis Gates Jr., Homi Bhabha, Stanley Fish and Fredric Jameson, to the University of Chicago for what they called "an unprecedented meeting of the minds," an unusual two-hour public symposium on the future of theory.

Understandably, expectations were high. More than 500 people, mostly students and faculty, squeezed into a lecture hall to hear what the mandarins had to say, while latecomers made do with a live video feed set up in the lobby.

In his opening remarks, W. J. T. Mitchell, the journal's editor and a professor of English and art history at Chicago, set an upbeat tone for the proceedings. "We want to be the Starship Enterprise of criticism and theory," he told the audience.

But any thought that this would be a gleeful strategy session with an eye toward extending theory's global reach, or an impassioned debate over the merits of, say, Derrida and Lacan, was quickly dispelled.

When John Comaroff, a professor of anthropology and sociology at Chicago who was serving as the event's moderator, turned the floor over to the panelists, for several moments no one said a word.

Then a student in the audience spoke up. What good is criticism and theory, he asked, if "we concede in fact how much more important the actions of Noam Chomsky are in the world than all the writings of critical theorists combined?"

After all, he said, Mr. Fish had recently published an essay in Critical Inquiry arguing that philosophy didn't matter at all.

Behind a table at the front of the room, Mr. Fish shook his head. "I think I'll let someone else answer the question," he said.

So Sander L. Gilman, a professor of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, replied instead. "I would make the argument that most criticism — and I would include Noam Chomsky in this — is a poison pill," he said. "I think one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track record of intellectuals is any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways."

Mr. Fish nodded approvingly. "I like what that man said," he said. "I wish to deny the effectiveness of intellectual work. And especially, I always wish to counsel people against the decision to go into the academy because they hope to be effective beyond it."

During the remainder of the session, the only panelist to venture a defense of theory — or mention a literary genre — was Mr. Bhabha. "There are a number of people around the table here and a number of people in the audience, in fact most of you here are evidence that intellectual work has its place and its uses," he insisted. "Even a poem in its own oblique way is deeply telling of the lives of the world we exist in. You can have poems that are intimately linked with political oppositional movements, poems that actually draw together people in acts of resistance."

But no one spoke up to endorse this claim. In fact, for a conference officially devoted to theory, theory itself got very little airtime. For more than an hour, the panelists bemoaned the war in Iraq, the Bush administration, the ascendancy of the right-wing press and the impotence of the left. Afterward, Mr. Gates, who arrived late because he had been attending a conference in Wisconsin, said: "For a moment, I thought I was in the wrong room. I thought we would be talking about academic jargon. Instead, it was Al Qaeda and Iraq — not that there's anything wrong with that."

Finally, a young man with dreadlocks who said he was a graduate student from Jamaica asked, "So is theory simply just a nice, simple intellectual exercise, or something that should be transformative?"

Several speakers weighed in before Mr. Gates stood up. As far as he could tell, he said, theory had never directly liberated anyone. "Maybe I'm too young," he said. "I really didn't see it: the liberation of people of color because of deconstruction or poststructuralism."

If theory's political utility is this dubious, why did the theorists spend so much time talking about current events? Catharine R. Stimpson, a panelist and dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Science at New York University, offered one, well, theory. "This particular group of intellectuals," she said, "has a terror of being politically irrelevant."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bsdeconstructed; criticalinquiry; emilyeakin; navelgazers; nyahnyah; reality; stanleyfish; theleftisdead; theory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: Pharmboy
The problem is they try to use theroy as a strategy to deny the truth...when it is most effective in butressing the truth or destroying falsehoods....maybe they'll figure out that they're on the wrong side and eventually find out how to utilize the "soft sciences" to actually create social change for the better
21 posted on 04/19/2003 11:53:07 AM PDT by Porterville (Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
For more than an hour, the panelists bemoaned the war in Iraq, the Bush administration, the ascendancy of the right-wing press and the impotence of the left.

No wonder these effetes hate the war. The sight of all those marines and soldiers in Iraq must be a constant reminder of how irrelevant and unmanly and useless their own "jobs" are. How many of these academics could last a single day out in 100° heat without showers, fresh salads, French wines, or the New York Times, and all the while being the potential target of snipers, suicide bombers or chem/bio attacks? It's the same reason Hollywood just wants this war to go away.

22 posted on 04/19/2003 11:55:04 AM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
The private sector can absorb them...

23 posted on 04/19/2003 11:55:53 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
The Ultimate Unified Theory of Everything consists of: Photons, Croutons, Neurons, Futons, Carrions, Gravitons, Crayons, and Morons.
24 posted on 04/19/2003 11:56:22 AM PDT by Consort (Use only un-hyphenated words when posting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hobsonphile
Fashion is something so ugly we have to change it every year.
25 posted on 04/19/2003 11:59:33 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
I'm surprised whathisface from Princton Univ. was not invited.

Peter Singer? He's an "ethicist" not a "critical theorist". Not a member of the club at all.

26 posted on 04/19/2003 12:16:18 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Exactly. However, the damage has already been done.

Now that these post-modern "theories" have permeated the university, it is no longer sufficiently reactionary to tout one's "theory." Best to move on to non-theories and stay cutting edge...

PoMo theory has trickled down in one manifestation or another. It is transformative: where did hate crimes come from? where did "the constitution is a living breathing document" come from? where did affirmative action and abortion rights come from? All these are natural consequences from PoMo theory and there are strong movements in America attempting to advance those ideas even further.

It may be academically passe, but these people control the university and have diverted important funding from REAL subjects to fund their drivel: money from Classics or History goes to Queer Theory/Women's studies or African-American Studies departments and there are generations of students that have suffered from a lack of education in the important subjects.
27 posted on 04/19/2003 12:17:28 PM PDT by diotima (FR/FRN SUPPORTS OUR TROOPS!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Are you SURE this wasn't from The Onion??
28 posted on 04/19/2003 12:25:47 PM PDT by alley cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
This is too good. They have hit upon a scapegoat for their destructive attitudes: Theory is the culprit. Sniveling cowards all.
29 posted on 04/19/2003 12:34:18 PM PDT by Marylander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Irrelevent indeed!
30 posted on 04/19/2003 12:39:13 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
So Sander L. Gilman, a professor of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, replied instead. "I would make the argument that most criticism — and I would include Noam Chomsky in this — is a poison pill," he said. "I think one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track record of intellectuals is any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways."

Mr. Fish nodded approvingly. "I like what that man said,"

SO DO I!!! Although this self-directed honesty from the academic left is refreshing, it should also be noted what they don't (and won't) say: That there have been intellectuals who have been right; and who have, what's more, furthered the liberation of the oppressed. Names like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthhammer, and others (many of them traditionally liberal but anti-leftist "neocons") who rallied to the banners Ronald Reagan raised against the forces of totalitarianism, come to mind.

31 posted on 04/19/2003 12:39:37 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Again I thank God that I was spared a higher education. I was born in a family of high academic acheivers (PhD's and MA's galore, and even honorary degrees from European Universities). Me? I got kicked out of 11th grade and years later got a GED for the fun of it (scored 100% on everything except math!) I am the only non-liberal among the bunch.
Higher education rots the mind and prevents logical or rational thought. That goes for any public education for lower grades too. I home schooled my kids (most of the time - years ago) and raised them on library books. Public schools are now officially slaughter houses and whorehouses.
32 posted on 04/19/2003 12:50:37 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
This article should be retitled to "The Latest Theory Is That Leftist Theory Doesn't Matter."

Most of the panelists are confessing their impotence. And as Stultis notes in post #31 above, they are being honest about their situation, but not completely. This is because, as Stultis also notes, the panelists neglect to mention the success of thier brethren who support the Right.

Theorists who supported the Right have been successful in affecting the world in positive ways. The names that come to mind are:

- Milton Friedman

- Freidrich Hayek

- Allan Bloom

- Saul Bellow

Ironically, most of them are affiliated with the University of Chicago, where this panel took place.

33 posted on 04/19/2003 1:09:58 PM PDT by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Please get it right. Peter Singer Bioethicist and chicken f**ker!

Regards, and good being with you at the Socialist riots the othe weekend.

34 posted on 04/19/2003 2:05:52 PM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Never saw that Churchill quote before...he gets more relevant all the time. Thanks.
35 posted on 04/19/2003 2:33:37 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I nominate your post for Quote of the Week! Great...
36 posted on 04/19/2003 2:36:35 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
This isn't a satire?
37 posted on 04/19/2003 2:47:57 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alley cat; Tribune7
If I didn't read this in the print edition this morning, I don't think I would've believed it either.

At last the NY effin Times is attempting to get on the right side of history.

38 posted on 04/19/2003 2:59:52 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Sander L. Gilman: "I would make the argument that most criticism — and I would include Noam Chomsky in this — is a poison pill... I think one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track record of intellectuals is any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways."

Whoa. They know. They've realized. They're saying it aloud... to each other... in front of witnesses. My God... This is stunning. In a good way.

39 posted on 04/19/2003 3:11:01 PM PDT by Anamensis (New axis of evil: Syria, Iran, Hollywood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
I'm beginning to think pretty darn well of HLGjr. He wrote a preface to the edition of THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD that I read, where he indicated that the Black Nationalists of the 1930s-1940s marginalized Zora Neale Hurston because she was a Republican and didn't hold with their separatist, marxist politics.
40 posted on 04/19/2003 3:14:20 PM PDT by Anamensis (New axis of evil: Syria, Iran, Hollywood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson