<< Artifice and Freakin' Reality | Front Page | Certain to brighten even the saddest last Saturday of childhood >>
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Well, Who Would Conservatives Have Us Footnote?
Laura Ventura, a law student from Indiana, picked up the then-latest issue of Critical Inquiry and read Anne H. Stevens and Jay Williams’ article The Footnote, in Theory. She was horrified:
For those who doubt the far leftward tilt of college campuses, one needs to look no further than an article published in the University of Chicago’s Critical Inquiry to dispel such doubts. An article by Anne H. Stevens and Jay Williams titled “The Footnote, in Theory” chronicled Critical Inquiry’s most frequently cited theorists throughout its existence.
The number one cited theorist by the magazine was none other than Jacques Derrida, “the father of deconstruction.” Exactly what deconstruction means is hard to say because even Derrida himself could not give a definition. In a nutshell, deconstruction is a method for discrediting historical theorists such as Aristotle and Plato for the sole purpose of promoting Derrida’s own beliefs.
Her deep familiarity with Derrida’s oeuvre notwithstanding, I question Accuracy in Academia’s decision to publish such a laughably ignorant article. Maybe a friend should’ve told her that anti-Derridean polemics account for half of Derrida’s appearances in CI. Proof? Of course I have proof. Responsible scholars—future lawyers, even—read the works they criticize, lest they risk writing the equivalent of this:
For those who doubt the anti-Americanist tilt of college campuses, one needs to look no further than an article published in the German Studies Association’s German Studies Review to dispel such doubts. An article by Anne H. Fritzsche and Jay Ametsbichler titled “Die Fußnote, in der Theorie” chronicled German Studies Review’s most frequently cited theorists throughout its existence.
The number one cited theorist by the magazine was none other than some German Guy, “the father of some German school of thought.” Exactly what some German school of thought means is hard to say because even that German Guy himself could not give a definition. In a nutshell, some German school of thought is a method for discrediting historical theorists such as Aristotle and Plato for the sole purpose of promoting some German Guy’s own beliefs.
Before you protest how unfair my parody is, consider what Ventura follows that with:
Notably absent from the list is C. S. Lewis. It is a fair assumption that he was most likely left off the list because of his strong Christian beliefs and influences. This factor certainly sets him apart from number two on the list, Sigmund Freud, who did not have any religious convictions. Realistically, the fact the Lewis was a Christian most likely sets him apart from all the “theorists” on the list.
I’m so blinded by the fact that C.S. Lewis rarely appears in CI because he’s a Christian, I can’t see her argument to refute it. “Realistically,” it is such “a fair assumption” I can do nothing but accept its accuracy. Sure, sure, the actual reason Lewis “was most likely left off the list” was that he wasn’t cited often enough to warrant placement on it. But c’mon now, we’re being “realistic” here, and the obvious reason for his omission is that his 4,837 citations in CI paled in comparison to his overt espousal of Christian doctrine. (Anyway, we all know the tricks the left plays with numbers. To them, math is but another masculinist discourse, &c.) After she’s proven that it’s probably fair to guess that Lewis was most likely left off due to his Christian beliefs, she addresses two other notable theorists absent from the list:
Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.
Before you think no one could read that without ruining a keyboard (or two, depending on how much coffee you’ve yet to swallow) Candace de Russy seconds Ventura’s outrage:
Those absent from the list? Such theorists as Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, and C.S. Lewis.
And people accuse John of using “theory"/"theorist" in the slippery sense? I love Mr. Clemens as much as the next 19th Century Americanist, but the man was a novelist. He wrote the things theorists theorize about, not the things they produce. (Not that there aren’t exceptions, mind you.) Where to begin? Maybe it’s better I don’t.
Alexander Riley did, however, only to be spanked by the executive director of Accuracy in Academia, Malcolm Kline. In 896 words—in fairness, only half of them are his—Kline said things. Some stuff, too. Like, in response to Riley’s question
What precisely, one hastens to ask, in Derrida’s work have they honed in on, in their painstakingly expert reading, as evidence for this?
He said:
Ironically, Riley devotes more than 1,000 words to an attack on Dr. de Russy’s 99-word and Miss Ventura’s 364-word post.
Read the article. That is his response to Riley’s question. Again, I’m at a loss where to begin. A pedantic statement about the unironic nature of the allegedly ironic question? A note that the explanation as to why the sky is blue would be lengthier than the statement “the sky is green”? Would pointing out that the response is a total non sequitur suffice?
I’m tempted to write that any engagement with people as intellectually irresponsible as Ventura, de Russy, and Kline ought to be avoided. Their commitment to empiricism, accuracy, and in Kline’s case, common sense, is as strong as is absolutely necessary to make the point they want to make when they want to make it.
ADDENDUM: While I question the company he’s keeping, I can’t help but applaud [the approach of] former Valve contributor Mark Bauerlein’s contribution to this kerfuffle. His assessment’s harsh [but unlike that of Ventura, Kline and de Russy, informed, i.e. incorrect but] not unfair. Of course, were it not for “scholarly” interventions by the likes of Ventura, de Russy and Kline, many devotees would’ve [and have] moved on to other things long ago. [Revised to to make what I said bear some relation to what I meant to.]
Comments
Can I just ask how the difference between “celebrity culture” and say a “canon” would be defined? Just wondering.
The right is, for reasons that are unclear to me, apparently broadening the “Theory/theory two-step” that John so often critiques. By including Mark Twain et al. as theorists, they’re not just claiming that theory is “critical thought”—they’re claiming that it’s “any kind of cultural endeavor at all.” Thus the illegitimate shift to capital-T Theory is even more deadly! Will these right-wing postmodernists stop at nothing?!
I will note that although C. S. Lewis is poorly represented in Critical Inquiry citations, he is one of the best-represented authors in our nation’s used bookstores. If you want a cheap remaindered copy of one of Lewis’s many fine works of Christian apologetics, chances are you can find it. And the liberal elitists are too busy drinking their lattes to stop you!
Laura Ventura’s comment is really just too stupid to respond to. But maybe it’s worth noting that in the fields where C S Lewis actually did serious scholarly work — medieval allegory, 16th century literature, and Milton — he is still cited on a regular basis. Surprisingly often, it seems to me: the Miltonists especially engage his arguments, though often of course to contest them. So for all you proponents of radical-left sectarianism out there, you still have work to do. You’re not hegemons yet!
His assessment’s harsh, but not unfair.
Really? To me, that screed looks like an agglomeration of highly-questionable claims (I’d love to see the data behind “the better students gravitate to the sciences and the insecure ones to the humanities"), cartoonish stereotypes ("Your slavishness in relation to the master is balanced by vitriol toward any dissenters"), and what I strongly suspect is projection ("The pique, the indignation, the rage"). Bauerlein’s approach would basically make it impossible for people to object in anything but the most muted and circumspect terms to plainly incompetent critiques of major theorists—a rhetorical pattern strongly reminiscient of the “liberal bias” canard that movementarians use to Mau-Mau the media.
I also have to wonder if he sees the irony in bitching about academia’s “intellectual corruption” from the pages of the NRO. If not, well…
I agree with Alan Jacobs on the Ventura piece. And Malcolm Kline’s little gem is one of the smarmiest pieces of smuggery I’ve ever read.
Dr. Slack, what I mean, simply, is that Bauerlein’s claims are arguable. I meant to compare the quality of his complaints to de Russy, Kline’s, &c. I’m not saying he’s correct, only that he’s harsh and not necessarily unfair.
... as compared to de Russy, Kline, and Ventura, whose arguments are, in fact, unarguable and unfair.
It seems odd for a conservative (Bauerlein) to be arguing against a tradition. I guess not all traditions are created equal! No doubt, his tradition (whatever it may be - whining?) trumps all others. And the left is postmodern - I think we’ve found our last men.
I understand, Scott. (And very good of you to try to clarify in the post above.) And hey, I’ll grant you that Bauerlein has at minimum some internal consistency and basic awareness going for him. He at least is not producing howlers as egregious as Ventura’s complaint that American-hating academics despise Mark Twain for his patriotism.
But I’m just wondering if the quality of Bauerlein’s complaints is really all that much better. Does speculation that “insecure students gravitate to the humanities” really seem much more arguable to you than claims that humanities scholars are irrationally biased against CS Lewis because of his religion? Do MB’s jaundiced depictions of students and tenured professors really seem all that much more convincing than Ventura’s “America-hating” academics? Because I’d argue that—aside from MB having the competence not to obviously trip over himself—neither of those aspects of his article seem much more interesting or in touch with the realities of university life* than the usual run of movementarian commentary.
(* Unless MB went to some profoundly Boschian institution or something.)
Actually, Scott, I think the biggest problem with Ventura’s article isn’t that it’s so wrong it’s difficult to criticize. On the contrary, there is a very distinct, very peculiar kind of wrongness on display in these exchanges. It’s a wrongness that has haunted me for a few restless days and nights, but I think I have it now:
You see, in these culture wars of ours, when a dangerously anti-American academic says “Derrida,” the defenders of eternal Western verities must respond “E.D. Hirsch.” Any deviation from this well-trodden ground will plunge both sides in a swamp of confusion that only gets murkier and slimier the more they struggle. Needless to say this is because Hirsch is the anti-Derrida (or Derrida is the anti-Hirsch, if you prefer): Derrida “deconstructs” or “destroys” historical figures like Aristotle and Shakespeare, while Hirsch calls for their preservation in his canon of cultural literacy; Derrida says the text means whatever you want it to mean, while Hirsch says it can only mean what the author says it means. In other words, Derrida and Hirsch perfectly align as the positive and negative valences in all ill-informed discussions on the current state of the academy.
By opposing Derrida not with Hirsch but with the Jefferson/Twain/Lewis triad, Ventura has gone completely off script, leaving us to wonder not only what the hell connects Jefferson, Twain, and Lewis, but, more importantly, what makes these figures the opposite of Derrida. It’s the culture wars equivalent of one of these Surrealist non-sequitur jokes. Q: How many angels fit on the head of a needle? A: The blue door. The only response is to come up with something equally outrageous and nonsensical. For example, maybe scholars with upcoming articles in CI, should replace all Judith Butler citations with quotations from Clausewitz. How exactly does Clausewitz fit in to all of this? Exactly.
I think R. Mexico is on to something. Following the Ventura model, I’m going to write an article complaining that not one American sportswriter—not one—has complained about the omission of Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan from the recent Baseball Hall of Fame election. It’s like the dog that didn’t bark in the night, you know.
My most pressing concern is the total lack of conservative professors in the new Jessica Simpson video.
Or was it the total lack of Jessica Simpson on my dissertation committee? I asked; she had committments.
Wow, that’s what’s wrong with humanities scholars: “The books that hooked them 30 years ago are as alive to them as if they were published yesterday” (Bauerlein).
The Village Voice has reported on Pataki’s great culture-warrior de Russy over the years, presenting a case that her denunciations of “teaching about victims” are part of a general distaste for minorities, notably Jews. This business could be taken to fit into that picture.
It gets worse. Ventura and the others are adding to Derrida’s citation count, increasing his lead over the top-ranked patriotic American theorist, whoever that might be. The extra cites for also-rans like Twain and Jefferson make no difference to this race. So, the hegemony is reproduced!