<< Adam Gopnik on C.S. Lewis: Fairy Tales and the Religious Imagination | Front Page | Explaining Myself >>
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
A Derridian Skull-Peeling; or, Damn This Foul Effluvium!
Walter Benn Michaels brings out the weird in everyone. What do I mean? In academia, he is considered Anti-Christ by the Theory crowd, even though the manner in which he engages Theory is, by any reasonable definition, "theoretical." His shrewd readings of Derrida do to Him what He did to Rousseau and Plato, i.e. he addresses the argument on its own terms and grants all its assumptions. Then he nabs the bat it brought to beat him and beats it insensate. Just like Derrida did. Despite siding with the Searle camp on matters Limited & Incorporated and the Michaels on material matters, I admire the tactical mind of Derrida and am reminded of it more the more I read Michaels. Though he shuns the conclusions Derrida drew, Michaels imbided the method and the message . . . and deploys it with the same subtle strokes Derrida once did.
And by "subtle" I mean "like Viking raiders soundly hitting shore." They produce not light but visible heat. The poor soul burdened by thermanæsthesia still feels the wattage wash across his face as the fireworks commence. All of which I say as prelude to the utter deflation of Michaels’ much celebrated article in the recent n+1. Sean discussed it on The Valve. Matt discussed it on Long Sunday—and took care to note that "even Sean McCann has seen the light" even though Sean probably saw said light quite blindingly when Michaels read [directed?] his dissertation. That Sean and Matt agree should shock you into immediate subscription, but when I read the article again today I noticed something strange about its placement in the latest n+1. When the issue first arrived I dove into the Michaels article first, then read the rest sequentially. But when I read the Michaels article this morning I could not help but question the decision to juxtapose it alongside J.D. Daniels’ "John Thomas and Lady Jane."
Daniels argues that the class politics of those who come from the middle and upper classes are tainted by an idealism so pervasive its foul effluvium coats the minds of the working poor:
Talking about the working class in Cambridge is just an everyday gulp of egalitarian treacle, but talking about the working class in Jeffersonville, Indiana, where I was a warehouse clerk for the Department of Agriculture, is a good way to get your skull peeled.
That jibes with my experience. To talk of the working poor about their work and poverty will "get your skull peeled" because, like Daniels’ mother, the working poor have a work ethic and an earnest belief that they have earned their status via endless toil. Although Daniels speaks largely to the trendy John Deere hats donned by children of unthinkable treasure, his criticism of those who champion class politics undercuts the power of Michaels’ argument such that I incline to suspect malicious intent. But I don’t. I think this unfortunate editorial decision meerly unfortunate. I would have uncoupled Michaels cogent critique of the classless politics of the American left and right from Daniels’ damning criticism . . . but I don’t edit n+1.
Yet.
Comments
Why does a criticism of those who champion class politics undercut Michaels’ argument? My uninformed opinion was that Michaels is talking about poverty and inequality, not class. He’s always being quoted (or paraphrased in this case) as saying things like:
“Part of the problem, Michaels contended, is a liberal academia that attempts to describe class in the model of race or gender, i.e. as part of one’s identity and something to be respected in the name of diversity.” (randomly Googled from here.
As I wrote to Luther in That Other Thread, describing Michaels as championing class politics seems to miss out on important aspects of what he’s saying. Am I simply wrong about Michaels, or did you mean to imply that concern about poverty is idealistic in the same way that concern about class is?
I’ll stick my neck out and say that I think, in the end, Michaels is invested in reinvigorating class politics; I think it’s part and parcel of his criticism of contemporary identity politics. Because identitarians value difference for the sake of difference, they unwittingly champion the “culture” of poverty and insist that we respect the poor instead of ameliorating their living conditions. I could be wrong (as always), but I think this article an extension of his critique of identity politics...and to be honest, I can’t wait for the MLA panel in which he discusses Our America; oftentimes academic lectures are talked about as if they’re “events,” but with Michaels, the stakes are always admirably cogent. (That said, I should wait for Sean to weigh in, since he’s far more familiar with Michaels’ thought than I.)
I thought Dickstein directed Sean’s diss, and Sean’s WBM-partisanship was interesting preceisely because he was not one of WBM’s pupils or even at his institution. Am I wrong?
Josh, I know WBM read Gumshoe America, and that whatever status he had warranted special thanks in the acknowledgements, but I don’t know the details. In other words, I don’t think you’re wrong; I think, as per the usual, I’ve mangled the details.